Wife’s Conviction for Murdering Husband by Electrocution Upheld by Madhya Pradesh High Court; Court Finds Chain of Circumstantial Evidence Complete

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant judgment delivered on July 29, 2025, has upheld the conviction and life sentence of Smt. Mamta Pathak for the murder of her husband, Dr. Neeraj Pathak. A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Smt. Pathak, concluding that the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence proving her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant was convicted by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, on June 29, 2022, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for causing the death of her husband by electrocution.

Background of the Case

The case began when Smt. Mamta Pathak filed a merg intimation (information of death) on May 1, 2021, at Police Station Civil Lines, Chhatarpur, regarding the death of her husband, Dr. Neeraj Pathak, a retired Chief Medical Officer. The initial investigation, based on the postmortem report (Exhibit P/1), revealed that the cause of death was “shock due to cardio respiratory failure, as a result of electric current at multiple sites.”

Following the merg investigation, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Smt. Mamta Pathak for the offence of murder. The prosecution’s case was built on circumstantial evidence, alleging that the appellant, who had a strained relationship with her husband, first administered sleeping pills (Olanzapine) to him and then electrocuted him. The investigation led to the seizure of sleeping pills, an electric wire, and CCTV footage from the couple’s residence based on a memorandum provided by the appellant.

Arguments of the Appellant

Appearing through Senior Advocate Shri Surendra Singh, the appellant raised numerous grounds to challenge her conviction, asserting her innocence and claiming she had been falsely implicated. The key arguments were:

• Procedural Lapses: It was argued that there was an inordinate delay of five days in lodging the FIR and a failure to promptly transmit it to the concerned Magistrate, violating Section 157(1) of the Cr.P.C.
• Inadmissible Memorandum: The defense contended that the memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which led to the recovery of the electric wire and pills, was inadmissible as it was recorded at 11:00 AM on May 8, 2021, while the appellant was formally arrested later at 1:10 PM the same day, meaning she was not in “police custody.”
• Unreliable Postmortem Report: The credibility of the postmortem report was challenged on several fronts. The defense pointed to inconsistencies, such as the report stating the deceased’s mouth was closed, which they argued is medically impossible after death. They also disputed the estimated time of death (36 to 72 hours before autopsy), arguing that signs of decomposition did not align with this finding, especially in summer.
• Impossibility of Electrocution: The appellant argued that electrocution was impossible as the deceased was found on a wooden bed with his feet on a plastic chair, both non-conductors, which would prevent the completion of an electrical circuit. Furthermore, the house was equipped with safety devices like MCBs and RCCBs, which would have tripped.
• Lack of Scientific Evidence: It was submitted that the prosecution failed to conduct crucial scientific tests, like scanning electron microscopy, to prove the presence of metal particles on the skin, which is a specific feature of electrical burns.
• Absence of Motive: The appellant claimed to have a cordial relationship with her husband and that the prosecution’s theory of a dispute over suspected infidelity was unsubstantiated.
• Last Seen Theory and Burden of Proof: The defense argued that the “last seen together” theory was inapplicable due to a time gap of about 10 hours between when she last saw her husband alive and when he was found dead. They contended that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of its duty to prove guilt.
• Lapses in Investigation: Numerous investigative lapses were highlighted, including a faulty spot map that didn’t show the electric switchboard, failure to seize the bedsheet, and not examining fingerprints on the seized articles.
• Alternative Cause of Death: It was suggested that Dr. Pathak, aged 65, died of natural causes, possibly a cardiac event due to his pre-existing heart condition or from COVID-19, as he was suffering from fever.

Arguments of the State

Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate, countered the appellant’s claims, arguing that the prosecution had proved its case meticulously. The State’s arguments included:

• Corroborating Evidence: The FSL report (Exhibit P/21) confirmed the presence of Olanzapine in the deceased’s viscera, supporting the theory that he was sedated.
• Motive and Prior Conduct: The testimony of witness Chhandilal Bajpai (PW.4) was crucial. He testified that on April 29, 2021, the day of the incident, the deceased had called him, complaining that the appellant had locked him in a bathroom, assaulted him, and was torturing him. This established a clear motive and a strained relationship.
• Suspicious Subsequent Conduct: The appellant’s trip to Jhansi on April 30, 2021, on the pretext of dialysis, was a sham to create a false alibi. The driver, Ratan Singh Yadav (PW.12), confirmed that no dialysis was performed. Her failure to report her husband’s death, which she admitted in the merg intimation to have discovered on the night of April 29, was a highly incriminating circumstance.
• Admissibility of Evidence: The State maintained that all evidence, including the memorandum and electronic records, was legally sound. The pen drive containing the recorded conversation between the deceased and PW.4 was played in open court without objection to its authenticity.

High Court’s Analysis and Decision

The High Court meticulously analyzed each contention and found them to be without merit. The Bench, in its judgment authored by Justice Vivek Agarwal, provided detailed reasoning for upholding the conviction.

• On FIR Delay and Transmission: The Court held there was no inordinate delay. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh, it noted that a preliminary enquiry of up to seven days is permissible in family/matrimonial disputes. The Court also found from the trial court records that the FIR was, in fact, transmitted to the Magistrate on the same day it was registered.
• On the Validity of the Memorandum: The Court rejected the argument that the appellant was not in “custody.” It held that custody under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not mean formal arrest. The judgment stated, “…as soon as an accused or suspected person comes into the hands of a police officer, he is, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, no longer at liberty, and is, therefore, in custody…”
• On the Postmortem Report: The Court found the challenges to the medical evidence to be unsubstantiated. It observed that the defense had failed to cross-examine the postmortem doctor, Dr. Mukul Sahu (PW.1), on the specific contradictions they were now raising. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Sanjay Rai, stating that opinions in textbooks cannot be placed on a higher pedestal than the opinion of an expert examined in court, especially when the expert was not confronted with the said texts.
• On Motive and Conduct: The Court found that the prosecution had successfully established a strong motive. The testimony of Chhandilal Bajpai (PW.4) regarding the cruelty inflicted upon the deceased on the day of his death was deemed credible. The Court held the appellant’s subsequent conduct—her failure to report the death for over 36 hours and her fabricated trip to Jhansi—to be highly incriminating under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
• On the Chain of Circumstances: The Court concluded that all links in the chain of circumstances were firmly established:
  1. The deceased and the appellant were living in the same house.
  2. The relationship was strained, and the appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty on the day of the murder, establishing a clear motive.
  3. The appellant admitted to being the last person to see the deceased on the night of April 29, 2021, and finding him without a pulse (last seen evidence).
  4. She failed to explain the circumstances of his death, a burden placed on her by Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
  5. Her subsequent conduct of not reporting the death and creating a false alibi was incriminating.
  6. The postmortem confirmed death by electrocution.
  7. The FSL report confirmed the presence of a sedative (Olanzapine) in the viscera.
  8. The weapon (electric wire) and the sedative strip were recovered at her instance.

The Court dismissed the attempt to cast suspicion on the appellant’s son, Nitish Pathak, noting there was no evidence or motive pointing towards him and that the appellant’s own admissions pointed to her involvement.

In its concluding remarks, the Court stated, “…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.”

The appeal was consequently dismissed, and the Court directed Smt. Mamta Pathak to surrender before the Trial Court to serve the remainder of her life sentence.