The investigation into the death of 26-year-old Ketan Agarwal at Lohagad Fort has reached a critical juncture, with Pune Rural Police planning an on-site crime scene reconstruction to establish precisely how the incident unfolded and test the accusations levelled against the two suspects. The exercise represents a significant investigative step, as authorities attempt to corroborate the movements and actions of those allegedly involved in what initially appeared to be a tragic trekking accident but now forms the basis of a murder inquiry.
The planned reconstruction will scrutinise the movements of Ketan, accused Siya Goyal, and her alleged accomplice Chetan Babulal Chaudhary across the fort complex. Investigators intend to pinpoint the exact location from which Ketan was allegedly pushed, trace the trajectory of his fall into the ravine below, and assess whether the physical evidence aligns with the narrative presented by the accused. A mannequin will stand in for the victim during the exercise. Police have opted to keep the reconstruction timing confidential for operational security and to prevent potential interference with the ongoing investigation.
The reliance on crime scene reconstruction underscores a fundamental challenge in this case: the complete absence of eyewitness testimony. Without direct observation of the alleged incident, investigators have built their case almost entirely on circumstantial evidence, making the physical verification of claims crucial to establishing proof. Police have therefore undertaken meticulous examination of events preceding and following Ketan's death, attempting to construct a timeline that reveals motive, opportunity, and means.
To date, police have recorded statements from seven individuals connected to the case. Among them is Neeraj, an employee at Chetan's dry fruit business, who was detained and questioned intensively for over 24 hours. Although police have found no direct evidence implicating him in the alleged crime, investigators suggest he possesses valuable information about Chetan's activities. According to police accounts, Neeraj disclosed that Chetan used his mobile phone on the day of the incident after leaving his own device behind—a detail that could illuminate the suspects' communications and coordination around the alleged crime. Authorities are considering elevating Neeraj's status to that of key witness.
Police have alleged that Siya deliberately orchestrated multiple visits to Lohagad Fort to isolate Ketan and engineer an opportunity to kill him. The couple visited the site on May 31, and Siya allegedly sought to return on June 4, an attempt thwarted when Ketan's mother refused permission. The narrative escalates when police claim that during a subsequent visit on June 14, Siya attempted to push Ketan from a cliff edge. According to the police version, Ketan survived by grasping a bush, and when confronted, Siya offered an explanation: she had spotted a snake and pushed him to protect him from danger. This account, if accepted, would demonstrate premeditation through attempted murder preceding the fatal outcome.
Investigators allege that the fatal incident occurred on June 18 during another fort visit. Police contend that Siya, motivated by a desire to escape her arranged marriage to Ketan and pursue a relationship with Chetan, conspired with her alleged partner to eliminate the obstacle Ketan represented. According to police, Siya became convinced that Ketan's family was too influential and wealthy for her to exit the marriage without assistance, establishing a motive rooted in desperation and attraction to an alternative partner.
The broader context of this case involves a relationship that emerged amid matrimonial arrangements. Police have alleged that Siya and Chetan met during a business interaction in 2024 and entered into a romantic relationship in November 2025, precisely when preparations for Siya's marriage to Ketan were advancing. Siya operated a bakery, Chetan ran a dry fruit enterprise, and Ketan served as Director and Chief Marketing Officer of Success Group, his family's real estate company—a position that would have placed him within circles of considerable wealth and social standing.
Contradicting the police narrative, Siya's mother has provided an alternative account of events. She has claimed that her daughter did not wish to undertake trekking and that Ketan proposed the Lohagad Fort expedition. The mother further alleged that Ketan's own mother encouraged Siya to accompany her son on the outing, suggesting different pressure dynamics and motivations than those presented by investigators. This counter-narrative, though not yet tested in judicial proceedings, introduces complications into the case's factual foundations.
The accused's own family has responded with startling severity. Siya Goyal's parents have made public statements indicating that should a court find their daughter guilty, she should face maximum punishment permissible under Indian law. In an emotional declaration, they expressed that she should herself be pushed from the identical location where Ketan allegedly met his death—a pronouncement that reflects both rejection of their daughter and profound moral outrage at the alleged crime. Such statements, while emotionally understandable, complicate the public context within which the case proceeds.
The Lohagad Fort, nestled within Maharashtra's Sahyadri mountain range, has become a focal point in the investigation. The fort's elevation and surrounding ravines created the physical conditions for a fatal fall, yet also presented the opportunity for an alleged crime to be concealed within the appearance of accident. The investigation's progression from treating the death as an unfortunate trekking incident to constructing a murder case demonstrates how investigative teams must sometimes substantially reframe initial conclusions as fresh information emerges.
As the reconstruction approaches, the investigation enters a phase where physical evidence and spatial analysis may either solidify or undermine the police case. The exercise will test whether the alleged scenarios are physically plausible, whether the topography supports the claims made, and whether the movements described by suspects align with the fort's geography. For Malaysian and regional observers, the case illustrates how investigations into deaths in remote locations—particularly within India's trekking destinations frequented by tourists and adventure seekers—must navigate the intersection of circumstantial evidence, competing narratives, and the physical environment itself.
