Chemistry Teacher's Defense Fails in Husband's Murder Trial

A retired Indian chemistry professor, Mamta Pathak, was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of her husband, Neeraj Pathak, through electrocution. Her attempts to defend herself by leveraging knowledge of chemistry and highlighting autopsy flaws were ultimately dismissed by the court, which found substantial evidence against her.

Mamta Pathak, a 63-year-old retired chemistry professor in Madhya Pradesh, India, recently found herself on trial for the murder of her husband, Neeraj Pathak. Facing the judges, she attempted to defend herself by invoking her extensive knowledge in chemistry, creating a courtroom atmosphere reminiscent of a forensic lecture. "Are you a chemistry professor?" queried the judge, who was met with a respectful “Yes” and a namaste gesture from Mamta.

During the trial, she presented her arguments with a level of authority, asserting that the post-mortem examination could not differentiate between thermal and electrical burns without proper chemical analysis. Despite her articulate defense, Justice Vivek Agarwal reminded her of the autopsy details, which indicated definitive signs of electrocution.

The court was presented with compelling evidence detailing the events leading up to Neeraj’s death in April 2021. Mamta was convicted of drugging her husband with sleeping pills before fatally electrocuting him, a claim supported by the prosecution's circumstantial evidence. The High Court dismissed her appeal last month, confirming her life sentence.

In a dramatic moment in the courtroom, while pointing to the autopsy report, Mamta passionately argued gaps in the investigation process and referenced forensic literature to bolster her case. Despite her confident demeanor, the evidence against her proved insurmountable. The couple's troubled marriage, rife with discord and allegations of abuse, loomed larger in the minds of the judges than her pleas of innocence.

As an emblem of resilience, Mamta argued helter-skelter about her husband’s health issues, suggesting his death could have stemmed from underlying medical conditions. Yet the evidence of her motive and actions painted a different picture.

The court also learned that on the day of his demise, Neeraj had contacted an associate, expressing distress about his living conditions and accusing Mamta of mistreatment. Reports indicated that police had intervened shortly before Neeraj's death following a plea from his family, raising alarms about Mamta's behavior at home.

In her testimony, Mamta attempted to present emotional proof of her role as a devoted mother and wife, sharing family snapshots and cards. However, the judges were unmoved; they maintained that love and affection do not negate a potential motive for harm.

As tensions rose and her defense unraveled, Mamta’s composure finally slipped, revealing the strain of the courtroom ordeal. "I know one thing… I did not kill him," she asserted, her voice shaky. Yet, despite her efforts to blend her expertise in chemistry with her legal arguments, the facts of the case overshadowed her scientific defenses, sealing her fate in the eyes of the law.