Last updated:
Amid the outrage and speculation, one key fact remains important: It appears that no eyewitnesses to the act that allegedly led to Ketan Agarwal’s death have publicly reported.
Chetan told the police that he wanted to run away. But Siya insists that her rich family will find them – the only way out, she says, is to kill Ketan.
The death of Ketan Agarwal at Lohagarh Fort in Maharashtra has generated intense public interest and widespread media coverage.
Investigators now allege that what initially appeared to be an accidental fall was actually the result of a planned conspiracy involving Agarwal’s fiancee 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 events and the conduct of the accused before and after the death. He believes that this incident was not spontaneous but was the culmination of a pre-existing plan.
Yet amid the outrage and growing speculation, one key fact remains important: There appears to be no public eyewitness account of the actual act that allegedly led to Agarwal’s death.
In the court of public opinion, a motivator narrative Often becomes accepted truth long before a trial begins. Criminal courts work differently. Under Indian law, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The standard is intentionally demanding because a criminal conviction carries the most severe consequences available under the law.
What does the law say
The burden becomes even more severe where a case depends primarily on circumstantial evidence rather than direct witness testimony. Courts do not merely ask whether the prosecution’s statement is credible or not. They ask whether every reasonable alternative explanation has been ruled out.
That principle was officially enunciated by the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment.
In the Sharad Birdhichand Saradha case, the Supreme Court established what has since become the governing framework for convictions based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The Court, keeping in mind the decision in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobde v. State of Maharashtra, had said:
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that accused One must be guilty and not merely guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘might’ and ‘ought’ is long and divides vague guesses from definite conclusions.”
“…a train of evidence must be so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been committed by the accused.”
The importance of this decision is often underestimated. The Supreme Court was not merely asking whether the prosecution’s theory was plausible. It was asking whether every reasonable alternative explanation has been eliminated.
The difference between suspicion and evidence is precisely why many circumstantial cases succeed in attracting arrests but struggle to ensure conviction.
Challenges
Applying those principles to the Ketan Agarwal case highlights several potential challenges.
First, purpose alone is never enough. Even if prosecutors establish that there was dissatisfaction with a proposed marriage, a romantic relationship with another person, or a family arrangement, motive only explains why a person might commit a crime. This does not prove that he actually did so. Such reports that an accused was not mentally prepared for marriage may help in establishing motive, but motive cannot be a substitute for proof of participation in murder.
Second, digital communication evidence can be powerful but is often ambiguous. Repeated phone calls, messages, meetings or location data may establish a close relationship or contact between the accused persons. However, unless the material clearly demonstrates the planning or execution of a crime, the defense may argue that such evidence proves association rather than conspiracy. The prosecution must show not only the communication, but also the communication related to the alleged criminal act.
Third, alleged prior efforts can create a powerful narrative, but each alleged effort must be independently proven. If prosecutors rely on a sequence of prior events to demonstrate a continuing conspiracy, the defense will examine every link in that chain. If even one major link appears imaginary or inadequately supported, the defense will argue that the overall chain is incomplete. Under Sharad Sarda, there cannot be missing links in the chain.
Fourth, the prosecution may face difficulties if physical evidence does not conclusively establish how the fatal fall occurred. Falling from a fort is not in itself evidence of murder. The prosecution must demonstrate that the death resulted from an intentional act and the accused were responsible for it. If the defense can produce a reasonable alternative explanation – however unlikely it may seem to the public – the benefit of the doubt may arise.
Fifth, public discussion of alleged confessions should be done with caution. Under Indian law, police confessions are generally not admissible as substantive evidence against the accused, except within limited limits recognized by the Indian Evidence Act and earlier Evidence Act jurisprudence. As a result, no case can safely rely on media reports that the accused has “pleaded guilty.” The prosecution must prove its case through admissible evidence presented in court.
Conduct after the incident, ‘last seen’ principle
The prosecution may also try to rely on conduct after the incident. Courts sometimes consider attempts to conceal evidence, mislead investigators, destroy electronic records, fabricate explanations, or behave in a manner inconsistent with innocence as relevant circumstances. Yet such conduct is usually confirmatory rather than determinative. Suspicious conduct may strengthen the existing chain of evidence, but it cannot in itself establish guilt.
Similarly, if the “last seen” principle is applied, it happens that boundaries. The fact that an accused was among the last persons seen with a deceased person may raise suspicion and place the burden of proof to explain certain circumstances. Nevertheless, Indian courts have repeatedly held that last seen evidence is usually insufficient in itself unless supported by additional exculpatory circumstances completing the chain.
The defence, on its part, is not required to prove innocence. The burden remains on the prosecution throughout the trial. If the defense can identify reasonable gaps in the prosecution’s story, challenge the credibility of witnesses, question the interpretation of digital evidence, or suggest alternative explanations consistent with innocence, the prosecution’s case may fail to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
As Sharad Sarda himself warned, criminal courts do not convict because the crime appears probable. The prosecution must bridge the gap between what may be true and what must be true.
‘The standard of proof required is high’
The Supreme Court’s observation that “the mental distance between ‘might’ and ‘should’ is long and divides vague inferences from definite conclusions” remains one of the most enduring principles in Indian criminal jurisprudence. I also inserted proper paragraph spacing while preserving the original words and structure.
Speaking to CNN News18, senior advocate Vikas Pahwa said, “If the prosecution’s case is based primarily 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 that leads only to the guilt of the accused, barring every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.”
“Motive, phone records, CCTV footage, digital communications, conduct after the incident, or even the ‘last seen’ theory may each be relevant circumstances. However, any one of these, taken in isolation, is generally not sufficient to ensure conviction. Their real value lies in whether, when read together, they form an unbroken chain of evidence. At this stage, expressing any opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused It would ultimately depend on the evidence presented before the court and examined through cross-examination,” he said.
He said the strength of our criminal justice system lies in its insistence that convictions depend on legally acceptable evidence, and not on speculation, public sentiment or media narratives.
Advocate Gaurav Gupta, while giving his opinion, said, “It appears that there is no eyewitness or direct evidence in this case so far. The material being discussed in the media seems to be circumstantial in nature. While the crime can be established even using circumstantial evidence, the threshold for doing so is very high.”
He further said, “The standard of proof required to prove a charge of a case as heinous as murder is very high. Public sentiment or outrage, no matter how widespread, can never take the place of legally admissible evidence.”
About the author
CNN-News18’s chief correspondent Ananya Bhatnagar reports on various legal issues and cases in lower courts and the Delhi High Court. He has covered the hanging of Nirbhaya gang rape convict…read more
read more
