HC rejects ex-prof’s scientific defence, upholds life term for husband’s murder
A video of Mamata Pathak’s arguments went viral on social media when she cited flaws in the post-mortem report, especially on the timing of death and electrocution
The Madhya Pradesh high court has upheld the life imprisonment of a former chemistry professor convicted of killing her husband, rejecting her technical argument based on her expertise against the evidence cited.
Mamata Pathak, 64, the convict, cited flaws in the post-mortem report, especially on the timing of death and electrocution, based on scientific theories, when a bench of justices Vivek Agrawal and Devnarayan Mishra heard the matter in April. Her arguments prompted Justice Agrawal to ask: “Are you a chemistry professor?” A video of Pathak’s arguments went viral on social media.
On Tuesday, the high court rejected Pathak’s appeal and upheld her sentence. A local court in Chhatarpur convicted her in June 2022 of murder and sentenced her to rigorous life imprisonment. The post-mortem of her husband, Neeraj Pathak, showed he was electrocuted.
The couple had frequent quarrels over the suspected infidelity of the husband. Mamata Pathak referred to this and said that the evidence collected was neither relevant nor scientific to substantiate her involvement. She pointed out that the post-mortem report showed the cause of death as shock due to cardiorespiratory failure. The report said electric current at multiple sites caused the death, and that it occurred within 36 to 72 hours before the post-mortem.
Mamata Pathak cited a book on medical jurisprudence and toxicology. She added that the rate of putrefaction enhances with humid conditions, as moisture and humidity are enhancers. Mamata Pathak added that no such putrefaction was found on the body. She argued, therefore, that the death being shown to have taken place within 36 to 72 hours before the post-mortem was uncorroborated by the body’s condition.
Mamata Pathak argued it is impossible to differentiate between antemortem and postmortem electrical burns, referring to the burns mentioned in another book on the essentials of forensics and toxicology.
She said the distinction between an electric burn mark and a thermal burn mark is impossible. “It can only be made by acro reaction and scanning electron microscopy from the deposition of metal particles into the skin/tissue, but no such attempt was made.”
The high court referred to putrefaction or decomposition and autolysis, and said India is a vast country and the climatic conditions vary. “It is impossible to give the exact time when the putrefactive processes develop in a dead body. The blood acts as a good medium for their growth and spread. The two characteristic features of putrefaction are the colour changes and the development of foul-smelling gases.” The court said it cannot be said that the duration of death is wrongly mentioned.
Forensic pathologist, D S Badkur, said changes in the body are slow, and the clotting is not instantaneous after death due to suffocation. He added that heartbeat or breath can stop when the current is based on the quantum of voltage.
Badkur said there was no doubt that the cardiovascular disease was not the cause of death, though it is difficult to identify the injury marks due to the electric current. He added that the cardiovascular failure resulting from electric shock caused the death.
The court cited Badkur’s testimony and said that a motive was substantiated by Mamata Pathak’s conduct. It added that it proved an attempt to falsify the evidence, leading to no doubt that she had a motive to kill, as she suspected infidelity and subjected her husband to cruelty.
The court underlined the chain of circumstances and said Mamata Pathak was not on good terms with her husband. “[She] tortured him to death...by serving seductive, passing electric current...since all the circumstances in the chain are complete, the guilt of...[Mamata] Pathak is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.”
