On April 29, 2025, Mamta Pathak, a 60-year-old assistant chemistry professor, delivered a striking scientific defence during her appeal hearing at the Madhya Pradesh High Court, challenging her conviction for the 2021 murder of her husband, Neeraj Pathak.
Mamta Pathak was accused of electrocuting a retired doctor. Pathak’s courtroom explanation of the burn mark analysis surprised Justices Vivek Agarwal and Devnarayan Mishra.
When questioned about the findings of the post-mortem report related to electrocution, Pathak stated, “It’s not possible to distinguish between thermal burn marks and electric burn marks in a post-mortem room.”
According to India Today, she elaborated on how electric currents interact with tissues, mentioning that metal particle deposition and chemical reactions require lab analysis rather than visual inspection. Her defence, described by legal observers as a “mini masterclass,” has been recognised as one of India’s most unusual courtroom moments.
In video: A chemistry professor argues her own case before the MP High Court. She has been accused of murdering her husband by electrocution.
Case name: Mamta Pathak vs State of Madhya Pradesh pic.twitter.com/xPIWYapbLR
— Deadly Law (@DeadlyLaw) May 27, 2025Mamta Pathak’s Case Background
On April 29, 2021, in Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh, Pathak allegedly sedated Neeraj with sleeping pills before electrocuting him. Afterwards, she fled to Jhansi with her son. Upon returning on May 1, she claimed to have found him dead. A voice recording of Neeraj alleging torture, along with the testimony of their driver who reported her confession, led to her arrest. Their strained marriage, which included Pathak’s previous complaint about domestic abuse against Neeraj, provided additional context to the case.
A sessions court convicted her of premeditated murder and sentenced her to life in prison. However, she was granted bail in 2024 and appealed to the High Court.
The High Court reserved its judgment on April 29, 2025, with Pathak remaining on bail. Legal analyst Dr. Sanjay Gupta from Delhi University states, “Pathak’s defence leverages her expertise, but forensic evidence and witness testimony remain critical.”
Pathak’s strong defence raises concerns about forensic reliability and courtroom expertise, captivating legal and public audiences.
