‘Are you a chemistry professor?': 60-year-old woman accused of husband's murder stuns judge with scientific talk
A viral video on social media shows a 60-year-old woman explaining the difference between types of burn marks to a Madhya Pradesh High Court judge, who informed her that a post-mortem report proved death by electrocution. Refuting the report, the retired teacher offered a comprehensive explanation, prompting the judge to ask if she was a professor; she replied that she used to be a chemistry professor.
Mamta Pathak was representing herself in court in April after she was accused of murdering her husband, Neeraj Pathak, by electrocuting him in 2021. Pathak was found guilty of murder and sentenced to a life term in 2022, but she approached the High Court with an appeal. A short clip of her defending herself in court recently has surprised many on social media.
"You are accused of murdering your husband by electrocution. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem said that the body had clear signs of being electrocuted," Madhya Pradesh High Court Justice Vivek Agarwal tells the former teacher in the clip, recorded in April this year.
Dressed in all white, the professor rejects the finding and boldly claims that the determination of such burn marks was not possible. She delivers a brief lesson on how electricity and tissue interact and explains how acids are used to analyse whether the burns are thermal or electrical. She dismisses the claim that a determination of electrocution can be made just visually.
The answer surprised the judge, who stopped her halfway to confirm that she was a chemistry professor. Surprised by her explanation, he nodded to a lawyer seated behind her, who reciprocated his reaction.
Pathak presented her case in front of the division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra. After the last hearing, the Bench reserved judgment while the professor remained on bail.
The Madhya Pradesh police had arrested Mamta Pathak for killing her husband, 63-year-old Neeraj Pathak, a retired government doctor 63, by giving him sleeping pills and allegedly inflicting electric shocks on him.
She had then left Jhansi and claimed that she had found her husband dead when she returned. However, the police found audio of Neeraj Pathak, which went viral on social media, claiming his wife tortured him.
'Mamta came to know that Neeraj Pathak was in a relationship with another woman. Mamta had also filed a complaint with the police in January 2021 that her husband used to give her sedative pills by mixing them in food so that he could meet another woman. However, she withdrew the complaint later,' the police had said in the chargesheet.
A sessions court had found her guilty of murder and sentenced her to a life term. She then approached the High Court to appeal the decision and got bail last year.
(Also read: Who is Jonas Masetti, Brazilian Vedic teacher walked barefoot to receive Padma Shri)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
25 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Allahabad HC grants relief to journalist booked for reporting on mosque demolition in UP
The Allahabad High Court has set aside two orders in a case against Mohammad Seraj Ali, a BBC journalist named in a first information report for reporting on the demolition of a mosque in Uttar Pradesh's Barabanki district, Live Law reported. The orders had denied him a No Objection Certificate for the renewal or re-issuance of his passport, which was quashed by the High Court. Ali, along with another journalist named Mukul Chauhan, had published a video report in June 2021 about the mosque in Barabanki while working for The Wire. The district administration demolished the mosque in Ram Sanehi Ghat in May 2021, claiming that it was an illegal structure, PTI reported. An FIR was subsequently lodged against several persons, including Ali, under Indian Penal Code provisions pertaining to wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot, promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, etc., punishment for criminal conspiracy and printing or engraving defamatory matter. In September 2021, Ali joined the BBC. A year later, a chargesheet was registered against him and a trial court took cognisance of the matter, Live Law reported. At the same time, Ali had applied for renewing his passport in September 2022 as his passport was set to expire in April 2023. However, the Regional Passport Office asked for an NOC from the trial court in Barabanki in light of the criminal case against him, according to Live Law. Ali moved the trial court for the required document but his application was rejected. The journalist then approached the Allahabad High Court. In an order on Thursday, Justice Abdul Moin of the Allahabad High Court said that the rejection of Seraj's request for an NOC to issue his passport reflected a clear non-application of mind by the trial court, Bar and Bench reported. Quashing the orders of the trial court, the High Court said that Seraj may file a fresh application for the renewal or re-issuance of his passport before the Regional Passport Officer within 20 days. 'Upon receipt of the same, the passport authority must decide the application within one month, post verification and due formalities, based on the certified copy of this order,' the order added. It also said that Ali must seek prior permission before travelling abroad, adding that he must also adhere to the schedule and conditions imposed by the trial court. During the proceedings in the High Court, the counsel representing Ali said that the NOC was wrongly denied because the trial court ignored key government guidelines from two office memorandums, Bar and Bench reported. The two memorandums outline how NOCs should be handled even in cases with pending criminal matters.
India Gazette
12 hours ago
- India Gazette
Delhi HC grants interim bail to woman suffering from cancer
New Delhi [India], June 7 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has granted interim bail to a woman whose condition is serious due to cancer. She is an accused in a drug case registered by the Delhi Police Crime Branch under the NDPS Act. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted petitioner Jyoti interim bail until June 15. The High Court will hear the application on June 13. While issuing notice to the state, the bench has asked the Investigation Officer to verify the medical documents and a status report be filed within 3 days. Keeping in view the extreme and terminal medical condition of the applicant and in view of the humanitarian medical crisis which has arisen, the court allowed the application seeking interim bail. 'The applicant is enlarged on interim bail on medical grounds till.15.06.2025, subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond of Rs . 1,00,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent/Trial Court,' Justice Gedela ordered on June 4. Petitioner is an accused in an NDPS Act and was granted interim bail on May 19, 2025 till June 5 on the medical grounds in view of her condition. However the trial court refused to extend the interim bail as her regular bail is pending before the High court. Thereafter, an application seeking interim bail was moved before the High Court. Senior advocate Amit Chaddh,a counsel for the applicant, submitted that as per the Diagnosis Report dated 02.06.2025 of the hospital, the applicant Jyoti, aged 39 years, is suffering from Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia. This is an uncommon and rare kind of cancer. It was further submitted that on an application seeking further extension of the interim bail, on 04.06.2025, the Sessions Judge was not inclined to extend it further and had rejected the interim bail application holding that he had no jurisdiction, since the regular bail plea is pending before this Court. (ANI)
New Indian Express
15 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Uttarakhand High Court asks state govt to explain delay in phasing out revenue police system
DEHRADUN: Uttarakhand High Court has asked the state government to respond within four weeks to a contempt petition that accuses it of ignoring earlier court orders to phase out the revenue police system and set up regular police stations in certain areas. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari of the single-judge bench heard the petition filed by Haldwani resident Amit Kholia. He alleged that the state government has not implemented the court's May 2023 order to end the revenue police system. "The government had assured the court that it would take steps to establish regular police stations in areas where the revenue police system is currently in place. However, no significant progress has been made in this regard," Kholia's petition stated. The petition pointed out that the Supreme Court had, back in 2004, underlined the need to do away with the revenue police system, as its personnel lacked proper training and modern facilities. "Revenue police personnel are not trained like civil police and lack basic facilities like forensic investigation, DNA testing, and fingerprint analysis," it stated. The High Court had issued similar directions in 2018, but those too were not followed. The matter has drawn renewed attention after the Ankita Bhandari murder case, which raised serious concerns about the effectiveness of the revenue police. In response, Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami had ordered steps to quickly transfer control from the revenue police to the regular police. The revenue police system, which still exists in some parts of Uttarakhand, dates back to the British era. Under this system, local revenue officials have to perform police duties, including maintaining law and order and investigating crimes. Critics argue that the system is outdated and ineffective, and that regular police forces are needed for better law enforcement.
