Circumstantial Evidence Sufficient for Murder Conviction if Chain is Complete; Appellant's Conduct and Motive Crucial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Life Sentence Under S.302 IPC - 2025-08-07

MP High Court Upholds Wife’s Life Sentence for Husband’s Electrocution Murder, Cites Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence

Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the life imprisonment sentence of Smt. Mamta Pathak, a lecturer convicted for the murder of her husband, Dr. Neeraj Pathak, a retired Chief Medical Officer. A division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra dismissed her appeal, ruling that the prosecution had successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence pointing exclusively to her guilt.

The Court emphasized that the appellant's conduct, a proven motive of marital strife, and her failure to explain the circumstances of the death under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act were crucial factors that solidified the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Case

The appellant, Smt. Mamta Pathak, was convicted by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, for the murder of her husband, Dr. Neeraj Pathak, in their home on or around April 29, 2021. The prosecution's case, built entirely on circumstantial evidence, was that Smt. Pathak first administered sedatives (Olanzapine) to her husband and then electrocuted him.

The death was initially reported by the appellant herself on May 1, 2021. However, the postmortem report revealed the cause of death as "shock due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of electric current at multiple sites," leading to a murder investigation and her subsequent arrest. The trial court found her guilty and sentenced her to life imprisonment.

Appellant's Arguments: A Case of Flawed Investigation

Appealing her conviction, Smt. Pathak, assisted by Senior Advocate Shri Surendra Singh, mounted a multi-pronged attack on the prosecution's case, highlighting numerous alleged lacunae:

• Procedural Lapses: It was argued that there was an inordinate delay in filing the FIR, a violation of the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Govt of UP . The defense also claimed her memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was inadmissible as it was recorded before her formal arrest.
• Unreliable Evidence: The defense challenged the credibility of key prosecution witnesses, including a relative (Chhandilal Bajpai, PW.4) who testified about a distress call from the deceased on the day of the murder, and the family driver (Ratan Singh Yadav, PW.12).
• Flawed Postmortem Report: The appellant contended that the postmortem report was unreliable, citing inconsistencies regarding the time of death, the state of rigor mortis, and the impossible finding of a "closed mouth" post-death.
• Technical Impossibility: The defense argued that electrocution was impossible as the deceased was on a wooden bed, and the house was equipped with safety circuit breakers (RCCBs) that would have tripped.
• Lack of Motive & Alternate Suspects: The appellant claimed a cordial relationship with her husband and suggested the crime could have been committed by someone else, including her own son, who was also present in the house.

Prosecution's Rebuttal: Conduct and Motive Complete the Chain

The State, represented by Government Advocate Shri Manas Mani Verma, countered that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed unequivocally to the appellant's guilt.

• Motive: The prosecution heavily relied on the testimony of Chhandilal Bajpai (PW.4), who stated that the deceased had called him on the day of the murder, complaining that the appellant had tortured him, locked him in a bathroom, and taken his belongings. This established a strong motive of marital discord.
• Suspicious Conduct: The appellant’s trip to Jhansi a day after her husband's death on the false pretext of needing dialysis was presented as an attempt to create a false alibi and demonstrated guilty conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
• Forensic Evidence: The FSL report confirmed the presence of Olanzapine, a sedative, in the deceased's viscera. This corroborated the recovery of a strip of Olanzapine tablets (with four missing) at the appellant's instance.
• Last Seen Theory & Burden of Proof: As the appellant was living with the deceased, the Court noted that the burden of explaining how he died fell on her under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, a burden she failed to discharge.

Key Court Observation: "Thus, on both counts of Section 8 and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it cannot be said that Smt. Mamta Pathak was not having any motive to eradicate Dr. Neeraj Pathak as that would have allowed her full access to his property and assets."

High Court's Verdict

The High Court meticulously addressed and rejected each of the appellant's arguments. The bench found no merit in the claims of procedural lapses, noting that the FIR was lodged after a preliminary inquiry, which is permissible in cases of family disputes as per the Lalita Kumari judgment. It held that "custody" for the purpose of a Section 27 memorandum does not strictly require formal arrest.

The Court dismissed the challenges to the postmortem report and the technical defense regarding RCCBs, observing that the defense expert's testimony was not conclusive and that the presence of an exit wound confirmed electrocution.

Critically, the Court ruled that the appellant's conduct was a key incriminating factor. The judges observed:

"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... 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... 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."

Finding no fault with the trial court's judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal and cancelled the appellant's temporary bail, directing her to surrender immediately to serve the remainder of her life sentence.