Police Say Siya Goyal Is The Murderer. Can They Prove It? The Challenge In Ketan Agarwal Case

Last Updated:July 11, 2026, 15:12 IST

Police have spoken about Siya and Ketan's planning meetings, phone records and rehearsals. However, each of these claims, however, will have to be backed by admissible evidence.

The principle that an accused is “innocent until proven guilty" could prove decisive in the Pune Lohagad Fort murder case, where police say that young realtor, Chetan Agarwal, was murdered but must still prove every part of their case in court.

What was initially treated as a trekking accident has, within three weeks, turned into one of Pune’s most closely watched murder investigations.

Twenty-six-year-old Ketan Agarwal died after falling from Lohagad Fort on June 18. Police later arrested his fiancée, 20-year-old Siya Goyal, and her alleged boyfriend, 22-year-old Chetan Chaudhary, accusing them of conspiring to push him off a cliff. Both accused remain in judicial custody until July 15.

However, the allegations have not been proven. Ultimately, the outcome of the case may depend not on public opinion or police claims, but on whether the prosecution can establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.

Police theory under scrutiny

According to police, Siya Goyal was unhappy with her arranged marriage and was in a relationship with Chetan Chaudhary.

Police allege the pair met several times at cafes, rehearsed the crime and even made one unsuccessful attempt before allegedly carrying out the killing at Lohagad Fort.

Investigators have also claimed that Goyal told them during interrogation that killing Agarwal seemed “easier" than telling her family she did not want to marry him.

Police also allege she said she disliked Agarwal because he wore a wig and did not want to upset her parents by calling off the wedding. These statements, however, were made during police interrogation.

Why police statements alone may not be enough?

Under Indian law, a confession made before the police is generally not admissible as evidence against an accused. Unless such a confession leads to the discovery of fresh evidence or is voluntarily recorded before a magistrate, it cannot by itself become the basis for a conviction.

As a result, investigators will have to rely on independent evidence to support every allegation.

Unlike cases involving eyewitnesses or direct forensic proof, the Lohagad Fort investigation appears to rest largely on circumstantial evidence.

This could include mobile phone records, CCTV footage, location data, digital communication, clothing, forensic evidence and the conduct of the accused before and after Agarwal’s death.

Courts have consistently held that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof.

The ‘Panchsheel’ test

Where a case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence, prosecutors must satisfy what the Supreme Court has described as the “Panchsheel" or five golden principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984).

These principles require that every incriminating circumstance must be fully established.

The proved facts must point only to the guilt of the accused. The circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Every reasonable explanation consistent with innocence must be ruled out.

Finally, the chain of evidence must be complete, leaving no reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence.

In practical terms, investigators must establish not only motive but also planning, presence at the scene, opportunity to commit the crime and that Agarwal’s death could not reasonably have resulted from an accident or any other explanation.

The importance of the ‘chain’

Police have spoken about alleged planning meetings, phone records and rehearsals. Each of these claims, however, will have to be backed by admissible evidence.

A relationship may establish motive, but motive alone cannot prove murder. Similarly, location data may place suspects together without proving conspiracy.

CCTV footage, phone records and digital chats will strengthen the prosecution’s case only if they collectively establish one conclusion—that Agarwal was deliberately pushed rather than slipping, jumping or accidentally losing his balance.

The exact rock from which Agarwal fell may therefore become one of the most crucial pieces of evidence during trial.

If forensic experts conclude that the terrain, injuries and physical evidence are inconsistent with an accidental fall, it could substantially strengthen the prosecution’s case.

If reasonable doubt remains, however, the chain of circumstances may be treated as incomplete.

Lesson from the Aarushi Talwar case

The importance of circumstantial evidence was highlighted in the 2008 Aarushi Talwar-Hemraj double murder case.

Thirteen-year-old Aarushi Talwar was found dead in her Noida home on May 16, 2008. The following day, the body of domestic worker Hemraj Banjade was found on the terrace.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) accused Aarushi’s parents, Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, of committing both murders and destroying evidence. The prosecution relied almost entirely on circumstantial evidence.

Although a trial court convicted the couple in 2013 and sentenced them to life imprisonment, the Allahabad High Court overturned the conviction four years later.

The court held that investigators had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. It found significant gaps in the investigation and ruled that several circumstances relied upon by the prosecution had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

What happens next?

For Pune Rural Police, the task now is to convert every allegation into admissible evidence capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny.

If investigators claim Siya Goyal was unhappy with the marriage, they must prove that dissatisfaction formed part of a murder conspiracy.

If they allege planning meetings and rehearsals, those claims will need support through witnesses, digital records or other admissible evidence.

Phone records, chats, CCTV footage, forensic analysis and expert testimony will all have to fit into one uninterrupted chain.

Ultimately, the trial may hinge on whether prosecutors can eliminate every reasonable possibility except one that Ketan Agarwal did not accidentally fall from Lohagad Fort but was deliberately pushed.

Until then, the allegations remain allegations awaiting proof before a court of law.

About the Author

Shuddhanta Patra

Shuddhanta Patra, a seasoned journalist with eight years of experience, serves as Senior Sub‑Editor at CNN News 18. With expertise across national politics, geopolitics, business news, she has influen...Read More

News india Police Say Siya Goyal Is The Murderer. Can They Prove It? The Challenge In Ketan Agarwal Case

Read More