Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra dismissed a criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant challenged her conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court upheld the conviction, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Bench directed the appellant to surrender forthwith, cancelling the interim bail.

The appellant was tried and convicted in Sessions Trial No. 84/2021 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur. The charge was that on 29.04.2021, the appellant had committed the murder of her husband, Dr. Neeraj Pathak, by electrocution. The incident came to light when a Merg intimation was lodged by the appellant herself on 01.05.2021, stating that she had found her husband unconscious and unresponsive.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Highway Dispute | Says ‘Work Contract’ Claims Against MP Govt Bodies Must Be Referred to MP Arbitration Tribunal Under Statutory Mandate

The prosecution presented that the appellant administered Olanzapine tablets to the deceased, which caused sedation, and subsequently electrocuted him by attaching an electric wire to his body. The incident occurred at their residence in Sagar. A two-pin electric wire and Olanzapine tablets were recovered during the investigation.

During the investigation, the police recorded the statement of Chhandilal Bajpai (PW-4), who claimed that on the date of the incident, Dr. Pathak had informed him over a phone call that he was being confined and tortured by the appellant. The prosecution also relied on the recovery of the electric wire and tablets based on the appellant's memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The postmortem report (Exhibit P/1) stated the cause of death as shock from cardio-respiratory failure due to electric current. The report noted the presence of multiple entry and exit wounds consistent with electric burns. The presence of Olanzapine was confirmed in the viscera analysis conducted by the Forensic Science Laboratory.

The appellant argued that the FIR was delayed and that there were inconsistencies in the postmortem report. She claimed that her son Nitish Pathak was also present in the house at the relevant time and could not be ruled out as a suspect. The defense further contended that the memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded before her formal arrest and hence was inadmissible.

The prosecution submitted that the appellant's conduct after the incident, including her travel to Jhansi under false pretenses and delivery of a bag to her mother, was suspicious. It was also pointed out that she had claimed she was going for dialysis in Jhansi, but this was not corroborated.

The court stated, "The deceased was subjected to cruelty and the medical evidence, coupled with conduct of the appellant, clearly demonstrates a premeditated act." It further recorded, "The nature of injuries as mentioned in the postmortem report, and the FSL report confirming presence of Olanzapine, establish the sequence of events leading to the death."

Regarding the admissibility of the memorandum, the court held, "Custody under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not require formal arrest. The appellant’s disclosure statement led to recovery of incriminating materials which are admissible."

On the point of delay in lodging the FIR, the Bench recorded, "The Merg Intimation was promptly made on 01.05.2021 by the appellant herself. Thereafter, the police conducted a preliminary inquiry, and hence the delay in FIR does not affect the case."

The court also observed, "The testimony of Chhandilal Bajpai (PW-4) is credible and unshaken. His statement about the telephonic conversation with the deceased points to the appellant's conduct prior to the death."

The court addressed the appellant's alibi, noting, "The claim of undergoing dialysis in Jhansi is not supported by any evidence. Further, the act of handing over a bag to her mother during that trip raises suspicion."

It further stated, "The attempt to implicate Nitish Pathak appears to be an afterthought. No evidence has been brought on record to support this theory."

Also Read: Calcutta HC Restrains Launch of Red-Coloured 'ELITO' Batteries | Finds Deliberate Imitation of Exide’s Trade Dress, ‘EL’ Mark & Shattered 'O' Device to Mislead Consumers

In conclusion, the court held, "The chain of circumstances leaves no doubt that the appellant alone committed the crime. Each link in the chain has been established through credible evidence and expert reports."

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.

Resultantly, this appeal fails and is dismissed.

The temporary suspension granted by a Coordinate 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.

Record of the Trial Court be sent back

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Shri Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Kapil Pathak, Advocate, with the appellant in person.
For the Respondent/State: Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate.

Case Title: Smt. Mamta Pathak v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Neutral Citation: 2025: MPHC-JBP:34674

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 6016 of 2022

Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra