Here is a rule that every seasoned interrogator knows and every criminal forgets: when two co-accused start pointing fingers at each other, neither of them is exonerating themselves — they are, sentence by contradictory sentence, potentially handing investigators the building blocks of a prosecution case. That is precisely the dynamic now reportedly playing out in the death of pune realtor IHG, allegedly pushed off the ramparts of Lohagad fort by two people who, according to police, planned the act together and are now desperately trying to plan their way out of it — separately.

Sub-judice note: This case is before the courts. Both accused — siya Goyal and chetan Chaudhary — are entitled to the full presumption of innocence. All assertions of guilt referenced below are allegations by police or prosecution and remain unproven. india Herald's analysis addresses investigative strategy, not culpability.

According to india Today, both siya Goyal and chetan Chaudhary initially denied involvement but subsequently turned on each other before allegedly accepting elements of the crime. police sources quoted by india Today state that siya allegedly gave a pre-arranged signal to chetan before he allegedly pushed Ketan off the fort's edge — a detail that, if substantiated, could transform what might appear to be a domestic dispute into an allegation of a choreographed killing.

The timeline investigators have assembled, drawn from CCTV footage and wallet PLATFORM' target='_blank' title='digital-Latest Updates, Photos, Videos are a click away, CLICK NOW">digital evidence, is notable in its specificity. Footage reportedly shows siya and chetan meeting at a café a day before the Lohagad fort visit, according to Hindustan Times. That rendezvous, police allege, was the final planning session — the point at which the excursion to the fort was allegedly fixed not as a leisure trip but as a location for the alleged crime.

The Anatomy of Mutual Accusation

What makes the alleged blame game between the accused so instructive — and so legally perilous for both, according to criminal law experts — is that each version could independently confirm core facts prosecutors would need. When siya allegedly claims chetan acted on his own impulse, she reportedly concedes she was present, aware, and in contact with him beforehand. When chetan allegedly claims siya orchestrated the killing, he reportedly concedes his hand delivered the alleged fatal push. Neither version, if accurate, exculpates its author; both versions together could form a near-complete narrative of alleged conspiracy and execution.

In indian criminal law, this is a potential case under the criminal conspiracy provisions — formerly Section 120B of the IPC, now covered under corresponding sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which replaced the IPC in 2024 — where the agreement to commit an offence is itself an offence. The accused do not need to agree on who was the alleged mastermind for a conspiracy charge to hold. They merely need to have allegedly shared a common object. And right now, by police accounts reported across NDTV, india Today, and Hindustan Times, every statement from one accused is reportedly being cross-referenced against the other's to isolate discrepancies, confirm timelines, and explore the alleged conspiracy angle.

The Alleged Blackmail Thread

A fresh dimension has reportedly emerged. NDTV reports that police are now probing whether chetan allegedly blackmailed siya Goyal — a detail that, if proven, could rewrite the power equation between the accused and potentially alter the charges each data-faces.

If chetan coerced siya into participating, her legal team could argue diminished culpability; if the blackmail allegation is a fabrication designed to shift blame, it becomes yet another thread investigators can pull to unravel what they allege is coordinated deception. Either way, the emergence of this angle signals that the investigation is far from static — it is actively expanding the alleged conspiracy web.

What the fort Saw — and What It Didn't

IHG, by all reported accounts, allegedly had no idea what awaited him at Lohagad Fort. india Today reported that the pune businessman was allegedly lured to the edge under the pretext of taking photographs — a detail so casually cruel, if true, that it underscores the degree of premeditation police are alleging. The fort, a popular trekking site in the Western Ghats, offered both the altitude and the isolation the alleged conspirators would have needed.

The families, too, are now part of the public narrative. siya Goyal's father has spoken publicly about the case, as reported by india Today. chetan Chaudhary's father has claimed his son is innocent, according to NDTV. These competing family narratives mirror the accused's own alleged blame game — a pattern of denial that, paradoxically, draws more scrutiny to the case rather than less.

The Prosecution's Potential Advantage

Here is the uncomfortable reality neither accused may yet grasp: in the logic of criminal investigation, a unified alibi is hard to crack; a fractured one can do the cracking for you. When siya allegedly says chetan acted alone and chetan allegedly says siya masterminded it, they may not be creating reasonable doubt — they could be narrowing it. The only fact both accounts reportedly agree on is that IHG fell to his death at Lohagad fort, and that both accused were allegedly present. Everything else is detail — detail that investigators can reportedly triangulate against CCTV timestamps, phone records, and café receipts.

The case remains sub judice, and both accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence until a court rules otherwise. But as the investigation deepens, the mutual blame game may have handed the prosecution something significant: two narratives that, read together, could amount to an admission of key elements of the alleged conspiracy — one the accused reportedly constructed themselves, without ever intending to.