Police Say Siya Goyal Is The Murderer. Can They Prove It? The Challenge In Ketan Agarwal Case
Police Say Siya Goyal Is The Murderer. Can They Prove It? The Challenge In Ketan Agarwal Case Curated By, Last Updated: July 11, 2026, 15:12
Police Say Siya Goyal Is The Murderer. Can They Prove It? The Challenge In Ketan Agarwal Case Curated By, 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. Police had earlier taken Siya to identify the precise point from which Ketan was pushed. (News18 Marathi) 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-si 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 BriefWire