It is definitely entirely in the fitness of things that the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Mamta Pathak vs The State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 6016 of 2022 and cited in Neutral Citation No. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34674 that was heard on 29.4.2025 and then finally pronounced on 29.7.2025 has deemed it fit to uphold the conviction of a Chemistry women teacher who was earlier sentenced to life imprisonment in 2022 for brutally murdering her husband by electrocution. It must be mentioned here that the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Agarwal and Hon’ble Mr Justice Devnarayan Mishra after hearing both the sides and analyzing all evidence before them concluded that the accused named Mamta Pathak was not on good terms with her sixty-five-year-old husband Dr Neeraj Pathak who was posted in Chattarpur District Hospital and tortured him to death on April 29, 2021 at his home in Loknathpuram Colony by first giving him an antipsychotic drug followed by an electric shock. His body bore signs of electricity burn marks detected at multiple places. Quite indisputably, the Court thus mandated after perusing everything pertaining to this leading case that since all the circumstances in the chain are complete, her guilt is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by one of the most eminent High Court Judges in India with stellar reputation for his excellent judgments – Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Agarwal for a Division Bench comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Devnarayan Mishra of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth concisely in para 1 that, “This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) is filed being aggrieved of judgment of conviction dated 29.6.2022 passed by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.84/2021 convicting the appellant in person Smt.Mamta Pathak, W/o.Late Dr.Neeraj Pathak for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C”) and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for six months.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on prosecution case that, “The prosecution case in short is that Smt.Mamta Pathak had given merg intimation bearing No.26/21 at Police Station Civil Lines Chhatarpur, which was registered under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to death of Dr. Neeraj Pathak. The merg was investigated by the Sub Inspector Pramod Rohit (PW.3) and in pursuance of merg investigation, he had prepared Lash Panchnama and Safina Form and had taken the statements of complainant Smt.Mamta Pathak. He had prepared the crime details and had collected postmortem report (Exhibit P/1) from the doctors and found that in the opinion of post-mortem doctors, Dr. Neeraj Pathak S/o.Chintamani Pathak, aged about 65 years, R/o.Loknathpuram, District Chhatarpur died due to electrocution. The first information report pertaining to Crime No.288/2021 was registered against Smt.Mamta Pathak for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.”
While unfolding the details further, we see that the Division Bench then lays bare in para 3 disclosing clearly stating that, “The investigation commenced. The memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 of the accused was obtained and as per her memorandum, the objects like sleeping pills, electric wire, DVR from the C.C.T.V camera installed in the house of the deceased, footage from the C.C.T.V. camera, which contains views of the house of the accused, the video recording etc, were seized. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Magistrate for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. On 6.8.2021, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur committed the case to Court of Sessions from where it was transferred to the Court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur for trial. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur found the charge proved against the appellant and convicted and sentenced her as mentioned in Paragraph No.1 of this judgment.”
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 161 that, “Firstly, it is an admitted fact that the house in which the incident took place is of Dr.Neeraj Pathak. Admittedly, the aforesaid house was jointly shared by Smt Mamta Pathak and her son Nitish Pathak at the time of the incident. Thus, when there was no external movement to the house and admittedly, the appellant had seen her husband on 29.4.2021 at about 9:00 PM as admitted by her in the Merg Intimation and had found that his pulse was not functional, her conduct of not reporting the matter to the police and travelling to Jhansi on the pretext of undergoing dialysis and not contacting any doctor at Jhansi as is admitted by Driver Ratan Singh Yadav (PW.12), who had taken her to Jhansi, and thereafter giving a memorandum by Smt.Mamta Patak vide Exhibit P/14 and thereafter recovery of electric wire at her instance by Jagatpal Singh (PW.14) so also recovery of the strip of Olanzapine Tables out of which four tables were found to be empty, the presence of Olanzapine in the viscera material (Exhibit P/21) of Dr.Neeraj Pathak and coupled with the testimony of Dr.Mukul Saha (PW.1) that Dr. Neeraj Pathak was electrocuted, leaves no iota of doubt that firstly, there was no trespassing to the house of Dr. Neeraj Pathak.”
Do also note, the Division Bench then notes in para 162 that, “Secondly, the minor discrepancies in the investigation are not sufficient to defeat the present case.”
Most significantly and above all, the Division Bench then encapsulates in para 163 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Thirdly, the clever move made by learned Senior Advocate Shri Surendra Singh to introduce an element of doubt that elder son Nitish Pathak, was also sharing the same house and even a finger can be raised towards Nitish Pathak, therefore, the benefit of doubt should accrue in favour of Smt.Mamta Pathak, gets nullified from very statement of Smt.Mamta Pathak that on 29.4.2021, she had gone to the room of Dr.Neeraj Pathak and when he did not respond, she had checked his pulse, his pulse was non-functional and her submission that she had gone to Jhansi on the next day but not revealing the fact that her son had gone to the first floor where Dr.Neeraj Pathak was kept in isolation on the basis of suspected Covid patient, the report of Dr.Mukul Sahu (PW.1) showing that Covid antigen report of Dr. Neeraj Pathak was negative, leaves no iota of doubt that Dr. Neeraj Pathak was apparently not suffering from Covid while infact Dr.Neeraj Pathak was under a forceful isolation, he was visited by Smt.Mamta Pathak and not her son Nitish Pathak on 29.4.2021, the elder son Nitish Pathak for the first time visited his father Dr.Neeraj Pathak on the first floor on 1.5.2021 alongwith the police personnel as Smt.Mamta Pathak had shown her inability to visit first floor of the house as she was not keeping good health and decided to be seated on a Sofa lying on the ground floor, her conduct of going to Jhansi without there being any reason, handing over a bag to her mother as stated by the Driver Ratan Singh Yadav (PW.12), who had taken her to Jhansi and thereafter roaming around Jhansi and then coming back to Chhatarpur at 9:30 PM where Driver Ratan ngh Yadav (PW.12) admitted that he had left Smt.Mamta Pathak and Nitish Pathak showing that Nitish Pathak was not left alone in the house when Smt.Mamta Pathak was away, completes the chain of circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that it was Smt.Mamta Pathak alone, who for the reasons best known to her, was not keeping good terms with her husband as proved by Chhandilal Bajpai (PW.4), tortured him to death firstly by serving seductive drug and thereafter passing electric current and since all the circumstances in the chain are complete, the guilt of Smt.Mamta Pathak is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.”
Quite significantly and so also as a corollary, the Division Bench then finds absolutely just no hesitation in holding unambiguously in para 164 that, “Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 29.6.2022 passed by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.84/2021 convicting the appellant Smt.Mamta Pathak, W/o.Late Dr.Neeraj Pathak for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 cannot be faulted with.”
It is worth noting that as a no-brainer the Division Bench then very rightly directs and holds in para 165 that, “Resultantly, this appeal fails and is dismissed.”
For sake of clarity, the Division Bench then further directs in para 166 holding aptly that, “The temporary suspension granted by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.3.2024 shall stand cancelled. The appellant Smt.Mamta Pathak shall immediately surrender before the Trial Court for undergoing the remaining part of the jail sentence.”
Further, the Division Bench directs in para 167 that, “Record of the Trial Court be sent back.”
Finally, the Division Bench then draws the curtains of this notable judgment by directing and holding in para 168 that, “Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Trial Court for necessary information.”
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur upheld the conviction of life term that was awarded to a former Chemistry Professor Mamta Pathak holding explicitly that the entire chain of circumstances indicates that the wife first made the husband unconscious by giving him sedatives and later killed him by electrocution. So her conviction was thus very rightly upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. It merits just no reiteration that there can absolutely be just no denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi
