The Ketan Agarwal Case: Why A Conviction May Be Harder Than People Expect

Last Updated:June 26, 2026, 19:00 IST

Amid the outrage and speculation, one important fact remains significant: there appears to be no publicly reported eyewitness to the act that allegedly caused Ketan Agarwal's death

The death of Ketan Agarwal at Maharashtra’s Lohagad Fort has generated intense public interest and widespread media coverage.

Investigators now allege that what initially appeared to be an accidental fall was in fact the result of a planned conspiracy involving Agarwal’s fiancée and another accused.

According to publicly reported accounts, investigators are relying on a combination of phone records, digital communications, CCTV footage, witness statements, alleged prior incidents, and the conduct of the accused before and after the death. They believe the incident was not spontaneous but the culmination of a pre-existing plan.

Yet amid the outrage and growing speculation, one important fact remains significant: there appears to be no publicly reported eyewitness to the actual act that allegedly caused Agarwal’s death.

In the court of public opinion, a persuasive narrative often becomes accepted truth long before a trial begins. Criminal courts operate differently. Under Indian law, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The standard is deliberately demanding because criminal convictions carry the gravest consequences available under law.

WHAT THE LAW SAYS

Where a case depends primarily on circumstantial evidence rather than direct eyewitness testimony, the burden becomes even more exacting. Courts do not merely ask whether the prosecution’s version is believable. They ask whether every reasonable alternative explanation has been ruled out.

That principle was authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in.

In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, the Supreme Court established what has since become the governing framework for convictions based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The Court had observed while keeping in view the Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs State of Maharashtra judgment:

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."

“…there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

The significance of this judgment is often underestimated. The Supreme Court was not merely asking whether the prosecution’s theory is plausible. It was asking whether every reasonable alternative explanation has been eliminated.

The difference between suspicion and proof is precisely where many circumstantial cases succeed in attracting arrests but struggle to secure convictions.

THE CHALLENGES

Applying those principles to the Ketan Agarwal case highlights several potential challenges.

First, motive alone is never enough. Even if prosecutors establish that there was reluctance toward the proposed marriage, a romantic relationship with another person, or dissatisfaction with family arrangements, motive only explains why someone might commit a crime. It does not prove that they actually did. Reports suggesting that one accused was not mentally prepared for marriage may help establish motive, but motive cannot substitute for proof of participation in a murder.

Second, digital communication evidence can be powerful but is often ambiguous. Frequent phone calls, messages, meetings, or location data may establish a close relationship or contact between accused persons. However, unless the content clearly demonstrates planning or execution of the crime, the defence can argue that such evidence proves association rather than conspiracy. The prosecution would need to show not merely communication, but communication linked to the alleged criminal act.

Third, alleged prior attempts may create a powerful narrative, but each alleged attempt must itself be independently proved. If prosecutors rely on a sequence of earlier incidents to demonstrate a continuing conspiracy, the defence will scrutinise every link in that chain. If even one major link appears speculative or inadequately supported, the defence will argue that the overall chain is incomplete. Under Sharad Sarda, the chain cannot have missing links.

Fourth, the prosecution may face difficulties if the physical evidence does not conclusively establish exactly how the fatal fall occurred. A fall from a fort is not, by itself, proof of homicide. The prosecution must demonstrate that the death resulted from a deliberate act and that the accused were responsible for it. If the defence can generate a reasonable alternative explanation — however unlikely it may seem to the public — the benefit of doubt may arise.

Fifth, public discussion of alleged confessions should be treated cautiously. Under Indian law, police confessions are generally not admissible as substantive evidence against the accused, except to limited extents recognised by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and earlier Evidence Act jurisprudence. Consequently, a case cannot safely rest on media reports that the accused “confessed." The prosecution must prove its case through admissible evidence presented in court.

POST-OCCURRENCE CONDUCT, ‘LAST SEEN’ THEORY

The prosecution may also seek to rely on post-occurrence conduct. Courts sometimes regard attempts to conceal evidence, mislead investigators, destroy electronic records, fabricate explanations, or behave in a manner inconsistent with innocence as relevant circumstances. Yet even such conduct is ordinarily corroborative rather than determinative. Suspicious conduct may strengthen an existing chain of evidence, but it cannot by itself establish guilt.

Similarly, the “last seen" theory, if invoked, has limitations. The fact that an accused was among the last persons seen with a deceased individual may raise suspicion and may shift an evidentiary burden to explain certain circumstances. Nevertheless, Indian courts have repeatedly held that last-seen evidence is ordinarily insufficient on its own unless supported by additional incriminating circumstances that complete the chain.

The defence, for its part, is not required to prove innocence. The burden remains on the prosecution throughout the trial. If the defence can identify a reasonable gap in the prosecution’s narrative, challenge the reliability of witnesses, question the interpretation of digital evidence, or suggest an alternative explanation consistent with innocence, the prosecution’s case may fail to satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

As Sharad Sarda itself warned, criminal courts do not convict because guilt appears probable. The prosecution must bridge the gap between what may be true and what must be true.

‘STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED IS HIGH’

The Supreme Court’s observation that “the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions" remains one of the most enduring principles in Indian criminal jurisprudence. I also inserted proper paragraph spacing while preserving the original wording and structure.

Speaking to CNN News18, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa said, “If the prosecution’s case is primarily based on circumstantial evidence, the law requires a very high standard of proof. The Supreme Court has consistently held that every circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be firmly established, and all those circumstances must form a complete chain leading only to the guilt of the accused, excluding every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence."

“Motive, phone records, CCTV footage, digital communications, post-occurrence conduct, or even the ‘last seen’ theory may each be relevant circumstances. However, none of these, taken in isolation, is ordinarily sufficient to secure a conviction. Their real value lies in whether, when read together, they create an unbroken chain of evidence. At this stage, it would be inappropriate to express any opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused. That will ultimately depend upon the evidence that is produced before the trial court and tested through cross-examination," he said.

He added that the strength of our criminal justice system lies in its insistence that convictions rest on legally admissible evidence and not on speculation, public sentiment, or media narratives.

Advocate Gaurav Gupta, weighing in his opinion, said, “It appears that so far there is no eyewitness or direct evidence in this case. Most of the material that is being discussed in the media seems circumstantial in nature. While guilt can also be established using circumstantial evidence, the threshold to do so is extremely high."

He added, “To bring home a charge of something as heinous as murder, the standard of proof required is extremely high. Public sentiment or outrage, no matter how widespread, can never take the place of legally admissible evidence."

About the Author

Ananya BhatnagarPrincipal Correspondent

Ananya Bhatnagar, Principal Correspondent at CNN-News18, reports on various legal issues and cases in lower courts and the Delhi High Court. He has covered the hanging of the Nirbhaya gang-rape convic...Read More

News india The Ketan Agarwal Case: Why A Conviction May Be Harder Than People Expect

Read More