If Professor India used chemistry as a law protection but failed

“Are you a chemistry professor?” the judge asked.

“Yes,” Mamt Pathak replied, grasping her hand in a respectful timing.

The teacher of the retired college, drafted at the White Sarah, glasses, the retired teachers, stood in front of two judges in the courtroom in the Central Indian state of Madzha -Pradesh, talking as if lectured by the Medical Chemistry.

“In posthumous mode,” she claimed, her voice trembled, but folded, “it is impossible to distinguish between the thermal burn and the electric burn without proper chemical analysis.”

Through the bench, Vevek’s Justice told her: “The doctor who carried out a posthumous room said that there were obvious signs of electric current.”

It was a rare, almost surreal moment-63-year-old woman accused of murdering her husband electric shock, explaining the court as acids and tissue reactions revealed the nature of the burn.

The exchange, caught video during the April hearing, became viral in India and stunned the Internet. But in court, no amount of trust, similar to experts, can cancel the prosecution – spouses, and motif that is rooted in suspicion and marriage disorders.

Last month, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of Mamt Pathak and supported her life imprisonment for the murder of her husband in 2021 by her husband Nerazh Patak, a retired doctor.

While Patchak established a living, self -proclaimed defense – causing gaps in exposing, isolation of the house and even electrochemical theory – the court considered indirect evidence convincing: she drugoo her husband with sleeping pills, and then electrically sent it.

In court, Mamta, the mother of two, looked into the pile of overflowing materials that passed through them before she grew animated.

“Sir, the electrical traces of the burn cannot be distinguished as an anti-moorment (before death) or after death (after death),” she claimed quoting a forensic examination from the book.

“How did they (doctors) write that it was an electric burn in a posthumous (report)?”

Microscopically electric burns look the same before and after death, making a standard examination unconvincing, experts say. A close study of skin changes can show whether the burn before paper.

Then there was an improvised exchange for chemical reactions, and the judge conducted it on laboratory processes. Mamta told about different acids, explaining that the differences can be made with an electronic microscope – something impossible in a posthumous room. She tried to go through an electronic microscopy and various acids. Three women’s background smiled in the background.

Mamta plowed – she said she studied in prison for a year. Turning out its tabs with stickers and quoting books of forensic medicine, she pointed to alleged spaces in the investigation – from the unverified crime scene to the absence of qualified electric and judicial experts at the crime scene.

“Our house was insured from 2017 to 2022, and the inspection confirmed that it was protected from the electrical fire,” she said.

Mamta told the court that her husband had high blood pressure and heart disease. She stated that the real cause of death was the narrowing and “calcification of its coronary arteries from old age.” She also suggested that he may have slipped and supported the hematoma, but no CT was conducted to confirm.

On April 29, 2021, Neeraj Pathak was found dead in a family house. As a result of the autopsy, electronic treatment was made as a cause of death. A few days later Mamt was arrested and accused of murder.

Police seized an 11-meter electric wire with two frames and CCTVs from the pair’s house. Six sleeping pills were restored in the 10 lane.

The posthumous report refers to a cardiac respilation shock from electric current at several sections as a cause of death, which occurs 36 to 72 hours before the revelation, which was carried out on May 1.

“But they did not find my fingerprints on the pill strip,” Mamta told the judges.

But her arguments quickly unfolded, leaving the judges Agarwal and Devnoroyan Sing, not convinced.

For almost four decades, Mamt and Nerazh Pathak have lived a seemingly ordered middle-class life in the hogorpur-slop to the drought of the Madzhaya-Pradesh district, known for its farms, granite careers and small enterprises.

She taught chemistry at the College of Local Self -Government; He was the chief physician at the district hospital. They raised two sons – one settled abroad, the other, to share the house with their mother. Neeraj voluntarily retired in 2019 after 39 years as a government doctor and then opened a private clinic at home.

The incident happened during a pandemic. Neeraj showed depressing symptoms and kept on the ground floor. Mamta and her son Nitish remained below. Two ladders from the first floor linked Neeraj’s numbers with the open gallery and waiting for the halls of its private clinic, where half a dozen staff between the laboratory and the medical shop.

The 97 pages said that on April 29, Mamt reports that he had found a non -governmental husband who did not respond in his bed but did not inform the doctor and the police until May 1. Instead, she took her eldest son in Jans – more than 130 km – for no obvious reasons, according to the driver, and returned that evening. She stated that ignorance of how he died when she finally warned the police.

Under this silence lay a restless marriage. The judges emphasized many years of marriage disorder, and the couple lives separately, and Mamt suspected his husband betrayal.

In the morning of the day he died, he called “Nerazh” the employee, claiming that Mamta “tortured him”, closing it in the bathroom, holding food all day and causing physical injuries. He also accused her of accepting cash, ATMs, vehicles and banking documents corrected deposits. After asking for help, the son of Nerazh contacted a friend who warned the police, who then saved the pensioner from what was described as “Mamta’s care”.

The couple even lived separately recently, adding the weight of the court.

Mamta told the court that she was a “best mother”, presenting a birthday postcard from her children as evidence. She also showed photos as she fed her husband and shoot with her family.

However, the judges were unwavering. They noted that such tokens of commitment did not erase the motives – after all, “mother -mot” could also become a “suspicious wife”, – they said.

Fifty minutes in her deposit, after parrying the questions and defending against the doubts of the court, the well -being of Mamta fell for the first time.

“I know one thing … I didn’t kill him,” she said, and her voice lagged.

At another point, she confessed: “I can’t take it much more.”

Trying to alleviate the tension, Judge Agarwal noticed: “You should get used to it … You must spend classes within 50 minutes in college.”

“Forty minutes, sir. But they are young children,” Mamta said.

“Young children in college? But your designation is an associate,” the judge pressed.

“But they are children, sir,” she replied.

“Don’t tell us such stories,” Judge Agarwal sharply interrupted.

Mamta fought not only as a defendant, but as a teacher, turning the courtroom into a laboratory of chemistry – hoping to prove his innocence through science. But in the end, the cold facts turned out to be stronger than her lessons.