A retired Indian chemistry professor, Mamta Pathak, lost her appeal against a life sentence for murdering her husband by electrocution after her unconventional self-defense—using forensic chemistry arguments—failed to convince judges. The case highlights marital discord, evidentiary challenges, and the limitations of scientific defenses in criminal trials.
Mamta Pathak, 63, a former chemistry professor, and her husband Neeraj Pathak, 65, a retired physician, lived in Chhatarpur, India. Their marriage was marked by long-standing discord, including periods of separation and Mamta’s suspicions of infidelity. On April 29, 2021, Neeraj was found dead in their home after allegedly being drugged with sleeping pills and electrocuted with an 11-meter wire.
The prosecution built a circumstantial case around marital strife, physical evidence (including the wire and pill remnants), and a post-mortem confirming electrocution. Mamta, representing herself during her 2025 appeal, challenged forensic methods, arguing burn marks couldn’t be definitively classified as electrocution without electron microscopy—a claim dismissed by judges who cited the autopsy report and witness testimony.
The crime occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, with Neeraj isolating on their home’s first floor in Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh. Mamta delayed reporting his death for two days, instead taking an unexplained trip with her son. Earlier that day, Neeraj had called associates accusing Mamta of torturing him, including locking him in a bathroom and withholding food, prompting police intervention.
Mamta’s motive stemmed from alleged years of resentment and distrust. Judges noted her history of controlling behavior, including seizing financial documents, and rejected her claims of innocence despite her presentation of family photos and a birthday card from her children as proof of domestic harmony.
Her courtroom strategy—quoting forensic textbooks and lecturing on acid reactions—went viral but failed legally. The High Court upheld her life sentence in July 2025, emphasizing that marital affection evidence couldn’t override physical proof and motive. The verdict reinforces India’s reliance on circumstantial evidence in domestic violence homicides.
The case has sparked debate about judicial accessibility, self-representation risks, and forensic science literacy. With no further appeals announced, Mamta will serve her sentence. Broader impacts include scrutiny of India’s handling of late-life marital disputes and the ethical responsibilities of professionals in legal settings.
Next, legal experts anticipate policy discussions on spousal abuse prosecutions and forensic reform, while advocates stress the need for marital mediation services to prevent similar tragedies.