An assistant professor of chemistry, facing charges of killing her husband through electrocution, stunned the court with an unexpected scientific argument.
In an unusual courtroom scene that has captured nationwide attention, a 60-year-old chemistry professor from Madhya Pradesh stunned the High Court with a highly scientific and confident defence against allegations that she murdered her husband by electrocution.
During a hearing before the division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra at the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the accused woman, Mamta Pathak, was directly questioned by the judge about the findings of the post-mortem conducted on her husband.
The judge asked, “You are accused of murdering your husband by electrocution. What do you have to say about the post-mortem’s findings?”
Mamta, who is an assistant professor of chemistry, took everyone by surprise with her composed and academic response.
With the confidence of a seasoned teacher, she calmly replied, “Sir, it is not possible to differentiate between thermal burn marks and electric burn marks in a post-mortem room.”
Following this, Mamta gave a mini chemistry lecture in the courtroom. She elaborated on the complexities involved in distinguishing between burns caused by heat and those caused by electricity.
ALSO READ: 100 Lawyers Try to Attack Cement Murder Accused in Meerut Court: “Taiyyar Raho”
She talked about how electric current interacts with human tissues, discussed the deposition of medical metal particles, acid-based separations in lab tests, and other chemical reactions that she claimed can only be accurately analysed in laboratory conditions, not through visual inspection alone.
This unexpected scientific explanation from the accused left everyone in court stunned.
The exchange quickly became viral on social media, with users calling it “one of the most unusual courtroom defenses in recent memory.”
Case Background
The case dates back to April 29, 2021, when Mamta allegedly gave her husband, Neeraj Pathak, a retired government doctor, an overdose of sleeping pills and then electrocuted him. Following the incident, she reportedly left for Jhansi along with her son.
When Mamta was questioned during the police investigation, she claimed that she had returned from Jhansi on May 1 and found her husband dead. However, investigators found voice recordings of Neeraj in which he reportedly said that his wife had been torturing him. Moreover, a statement by their driver added more weight to the allegations. He testified that Mamta had admitted to him that she had made a “big mistake”.
Investigators also discovered signs of a troubled marriage. Mamta had earlier filed a domestic violence complaint, accusing her husband of drugging her food and subjecting her to abuse. However, she later withdrew the complaint.
A lower sessions court found Mamta guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced her to life imprisonment. She then challenged the verdict in the High Court, where she was granted bail last year.
After the latest hearing on April 29, the High Court bench has reserved its judgment, and Mamta Pathak remains out on bail until the final decision is announced.
The courtroom episode, blending science with law in a murder trial, has become a talking point both in legal circles and among the public, raising broader questions about forensic interpretation, courtroom procedures, and the power of knowledge in the pursuit of justice.
