In a unique courtroom scene, Mamta Pathak, a chemistry professor, attempted to use her expertise to contest her conviction for murdering her husband, Neeraj Pathak, through electrocution. Despite her efforts, the court upheld the evidence against her, leading to her life sentence.
Chemistry Professor's Defense Fails in Husband's Murder Conviction
Chemistry Professor's Defense Fails in Husband's Murder Conviction
Mamta Pathak, a retired professor, argued her case in a murder trial but her scientific explanations couldn't overturn a life sentence for her husband's death.
When Mamta Pathak stood before the judges in Madhya Pradesh, she presented her defense with the confidence of a seasoned professor. "Are you a chemistry professor?" the judge asked, to which she respectfully replied, "Yes," draped in a white sari, glasses adorning her nose. Her argument revolved around the nuances of forensic chemistry, asserting that differentiating thermal burns from electric burns required detailed chemical analysis. Yet, the judge reminded her of the clear findings from the post-mortem that indicated electrocution, as her attempts to explain the chemistry went viral online.
Mamta was ultimately sentenced to life imprisonment for the April 2021 murder of her husband, Neeraj Pathak, despite her impassioned defense focusing on alleged flaws in the investigation. She highlighted gaps such as the absence of expert analysis at the crime scene and asserted that the true cause of death stemmed from underlying health issues rather than murder.
Her husband’s death was declared the result of electric shock, occurring shortly after he had been allegedly drugged. The court had ample circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage and recovering sleeping pills, which pointed to Mamta’s guilt.
While she tirelessly combed through case documents and cited forensic literature, the judges remained unconvinced. They noted longstanding marital discord, with Neeraj’s claims of mistreatment and threats made by Mamta prior to his demise. This context further clouded her assertions of innocence.
In a courtroom moment reminiscent of lectures she once gave, Mamta illustrated chemical principles, but the judges found clear convictions against her actions. She argued passionately, but her confidence waned, revealing cracks in her facade as she declared, "I know one thing… I did not kill him." Nevertheless, the weight of circumstantial evidence and suggestions of motive proved insurmountable, validating the court’s final decision to uphold her life sentence.
