The investigation into the death of 26-year-old Ketan Agarwal has reached a critical juncture, with Pune Rural Police now planning an on-site reconstruction of events at Lohagad Fort to establish precisely how the tragedy unfolded and test the narratives offered by those accused in the case. This procedural step represents a significant escalation in what began as an apparent trekking accident but has since transformed into a complex murder investigation involving multiple players and conflicting accounts of what transpired on the Sahyadri range.
The planned reconstruction exercise will be conducted with substantial secrecy, authorities say, citing both operational security and the sensitive nature of ongoing investigative work. Nevertheless, the process is designed to map out the movements and positions of the three central figures on the day of the alleged incident: the victim Ketan, accused Siya Goyal, and her alleged accomplice Chetan Babulal Chaudhary. Investigators intend to identify the precise location from which Ketan was allegedly propelled from the cliff edge, trace the trajectory and distance of his fatal descent into the ravine below, and determine whether the physical evidence aligns with the explanations provided by the accused. A mannequin will substitute for the victim's body during this reconstruction process.
The absence of any eyewitnesses to the incident itself has forced investigators to construct their case almost entirely from circumstantial evidence, making the chronological reconstruction essential to establishing causation and intent. Detectives are systematically reexamining the hours preceding Ketan's death as well as the immediate aftermath, seeking patterns and inconsistencies that might corroborate or undermine the prosecution's theory. This methodical approach reflects the investigative challenges inherent in cases where direct testimony is unavailable and requires building a persuasive chain of circumstantial indicators.
In their questioning to date, police have recorded statements from seven individuals connected to the case. Among the most scrutinised has been Neeraj, an employee at Chetan's dry fruit shop, who was held and interrogated for more than 24 hours. Despite initially detaining him, investigators concluded that the evidence does not establish Neeraj as a direct participant in any alleged crime. However, his significance may lie elsewhere: police allege that Neeraj disclosed to them that Chetan had borrowed his mobile telephone on the day in question. According to the police account, Chetan had deliberately left his own phone behind and used Neeraj's device to maintain contact with Siya, a detail that investigators believe could prove pivotal. The plan is now to position Neeraj as a key witness whose testimony regarding Chetan's communication patterns could help establish premeditation or coordination between the two accused persons.
The sequence of events leading to Ketan's death, as reconstructed by police, reveals a pattern of alleged escalation spanning nearly three weeks. The couple's initial visit to Lohagad Fort occurred on May 31, after which Siya purportedly attempted to engineer additional trips to the location. When Ketan's mother declined permission for a June 4 visit, the plan was temporarily forestalled. On June 14, during another visit that did occur, police allege that Siya made an initial attempt to push Ketan from a cliff edge. Ketan apparently averted disaster by grasping at vegetation, and when he confronted Siya about her actions, she offered an explanation claiming she had spotted a snake and had shoved him to shield him from danger. This account, police suggest, was fabricated, but Ketan accepted it at the time. The fatal incident allegedly took place four days later on June 18, when both Siya and Chetan were present at the fort.
The motive attributed to the alleged killers hinges partly on what police characterise as Siya's entrapment within an unwanted marriage. According to police statements, Ketan had asserted to Siya that his family wielded considerable influence and substantial financial resources, implying that escape from the marriage would be impossible. This perceived coercion, police theorise, may have motivated her collaboration with Chetan, with whom she had begun a secret relationship in November 2025 while her marriage preparations to Ketan were still advancing. Police further claim that Siya repeatedly pressed for visits to Lohagad Fort, suggesting a deliberate effort to engineer the circumstances of Ketan's death at that particular location.
However, this police narrative is directly contested by Siya's mother, who has issued a counter-statement that contradicts the investigative conclusions on several key points. According to her account, it was Ketan, not Siya, who expressed eagerness to visit Lohagad Fort and undertake trekking activities. She further asserts that Siya harboured no enthusiasm for such expeditions. Moreover, the accused's mother claims that it was Ketan's own mother who persuaded Siya to accompany her son on these outings, a version that fundamentally alters the implied agency and intent behind the fort visits. These competing narratives underline the stakes of the forthcoming reconstruction exercise, which may provide objective evidence to clarify which account more closely aligns with physical reality.
The background of the three individuals illuminates the socioeconomic dimensions of the case. Ketan held the position of Director and Chief Marketing Officer within Success Group, his family's real estate enterprise, positioning him within a prosperous business family. Siya operated a bakery business of her own, indicating entrepreneurial capacity, while Chetan managed a dry fruit trading concern. The marriages and business relationships among these individuals suggest circles of middleclass prosperity, yet the alleged crime emerged from personal entanglement and emotional manipulation rather than material dispute, pointing to the psychological complexity underlying the case.
Siya's parents have made extraordinary public statements regarding their willingness to accept judicial consequences if their daughter is found culpable. They have declared that should the court determine her guilty, she should face the maximum punishment available under Indian law. In an emotionally charged assertion, they even suggested that she should suffer the same fate as the alleged victim, being pushed from the same cliff edge from which Ketan fell. These statements, whilst demonstrating the family's apparent moral stance, also reflect the profound rupture occasioned by the allegations and the family's seeming acceptance of the gravity of the charges. Such public positioning may influence perceptions of Siya's credibility and her parents' own knowledge of events.
The shift from the initial classification of Ketan's death as an accidental fall during a recreational trek to a deliberate homicide investigation represents a significant investigative pivot. This transition typically occurs when initial evidence or witness statements prompt police to reconsider the circumstances under a different legal framework. The reconstruction exercise now planned serves as both a critical fact-finding mechanism and a procedural safeguard, allowing independent judicial oversight of the police theory whilst providing material evidence that may be presented before courts. As the legal proceedings continue, this physical reconstruction will likely become a centrepiece of the prosecution's evidentiary presentation, making its conduct and results consequential for the ultimate adjudication of guilt or innocence.
