Follow Us;Resize=(820,462) "MP professor")
A 60-year-old chemistry professor, jailed for 20 years, for the alleged murder of her husband has taken it upon herself to dismantle the prosecution’s evidence — invoking her academic expertise to challenge the very autopsy report of her husband.
A 60-year-old chemistry professor sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment for the alleged murder of her husband has taken it upon herself to dismantle the prosecution’s evidence — invoking her academic expertise to challenge the very autopsy report of her husband.
Mamta Pathak, a resident of Chhatarpur and a college lecturer in chemistry, has now become the face of a courtroom spectacle, as videos of her self-representation before the Madhya Pradesh High Court go viral. The division bench of Justices Vivek Agarwal and Devnarayan Mishra recently heard her arguments and has reserved judgment, suspending her sentence until a verdict is pronounced.
In the viral courtroom footage, Mamta attempts to poke holes in the autopsy findings, asserting that it is scientifically not possible to distinguish between electrical and thermal burns through visual examination alone. “This can be done only through chemical analysis,” she argued. Justice Agarwal, seeking clarity, asked whether she was a chemistry professor. She confirmed, “Yes.” When asked why her lawyer failed to question the doctor during trial, she responded, “I was in jail then.”
Related Articles
However, her credibility faced a hiccup when she confused nitric acid with hydrochloric acid — a slip that Justice Agarwal promptly pointed out.
What's the case?
According to the prosecution, Mamta’s husband, Dr. Neeraj Pathak (63), was found dead at his Chhatarpur residence on April 29, 2021. Five electric burn marks were observed on his body. Although the couple had been estranged, Mamta had moved back into the house just months before Neeraj’s death. Their reunion, however, was marred by frequent quarrels — allegedly fueled by Mamta’s suspicions of Neeraj’s affair.
On the day of the incident, Neeraj reportedly called a relative, claiming Mamta had been “torturing” him for days — starving him and locking him in the bathroom. He further alleged she had caused him head injuries by "thrusting him into the bathroom.” The relative alerted the police, prompting Mamta to finally let him out, prosecutors said.
Later that evening, the same relative phoned Neeraj again. A recording of their conversation was submitted in court. That night, around 9 pm, Neeraj was found dead. Mamta later claimed she had gone to ask him for food, only to find he had no pulse.
She did not inform the police immediately. Instead, she traveled to Jhansi for dialysis the next day, only returning at night and then reporting his death. Investigators also discovered sleeping pills in Neeraj’s room. The trial court, relying heavily on circumstantial evidence, found her guilty and sentenced her to two decades in prison.
Defending herself, Mamta contended that Neeraj had insured the house, and it was secured against accidents from electrical faults. Yet, no forensic team was called to inspect the premises. She also questioned why the postmortem report made no mention of decomposition-related odors, even though the autopsy was conducted 36 hours after death — a period well beyond the typical onset of bodily decay.
Despite the theatrics and technical jargon, the bench reminded Mamta that judgments are grounded in tangible evidence. “We are hearing you out of turn and with an open mind,” they said, “but cases are decided on the touchstone of evidence.”
The court has now reserved its decision.
