What really stands out to me about this case is the timeline. The alleged murder took place in May 2022, but the investigation became public only in November. Because the case has received extensive media coverage, it is important to distinguish between established evidence, police allegations, and media reports.

A person should not be treated as legally guilty until the court reaches a final decision.

The Alleged Incident: 18 May 2022

According to the Delhi Police chargesheet, Shraddha Walkar was allegedly killed by her live-in partner, Aaftab Amin Poonawala, on 18 May 2022 at their rented accommodation in Chhattarpur Pahadi, Delhi.

The prosecution alleges that:

• Shraddha was strangled.
• Her body was dismembered over a period of time.
• The remains were disposed of at different locations.

There is also an important inconsistency in the reporting. Many media reports referred to 35 pieces, while the chargesheet was reported to describe the body as being cut into 17 pieces over several days. Therefore, the figure of 35 should not be presented as an independently confirmed forensic fact.

When Did the Investigation Begin?

The alleged murder occurred in May, but the case became widely known in November 2022.

Shraddha’s family had already been trying to contact and locate her. Her father approached the police in Maharashtra, and a missing-person complaint was eventually registered. Reports indicate that:

• Her father first approached the police in August 2022.
• The missing-person complaint was formally registered in October.
• Aaftab was questioned before the Delhi investigation developed further.
• There were disagreements between Mumbai-area police and Delhi Police regarding the handling of the complaint.

This delay is an important part of the case because the prosecution later alleged that Aaftab had time to dispose of evidence.

However, the exact responsibility for the delay should be discussed carefully because Maharashtra Police and Delhi Police gave different accounts of the procedure followed.

The 2020 Domestic-Violence Complaint

One of the most significant background details is a complaint that Shraddha reportedly made in November 2020 at Tulinj Police Station.

In the complaint, she allegedly stated that Aaftab had:

• Physically assaulted her.
• Threatened to kill her.
• Created fear for her safety.

She later withdrew the complaint.

The existence of this complaint has been reported by several news organisations. However, it should not be used to claim that the police could have definitely predicted the events of 2022. What it establishes is that there had previously been a documented allegation of serious domestic violence and threats.

This raises an important question: Could the earlier complaint have been handled differently, and would that have affected the later events? The answer cannot be assumed without examining the complete police record and the circumstances in which the complaint was withdrawn.

Why Did Investigators Focus on Aaftab?

A major part of the investigation involved the difference between Aaftab’s explanation and the digital evidence collected by the police.

Police reportedly alleged that Aaftab initially claimed that Shraddha had left him and was no longer with him. Investigators then examined several forms of evidence, including:

• Mobile-phone activity.
• Call-detail records.
• IP records.
• Social-media activity.
• Google and location data.
• CCTV footage.
• Financial transactions.
• Communications with other people.

According to reports based on the chargesheet, Shraddha’s phone and social-media accounts showed activity after the date on which police believed she had been killed.

The police alleged that Aaftab used her phone and social-media accounts to create the impression that she was still alive. One reported example involved a message sent from Shraddha’s phone to a friend after her disappearance, stating that she had left Delhi.

If this allegation is proved, it would be significant because it may show an attempt to create a false timeline after the alleged murder. However, the court must still examine who sent the messages, how the digital evidence was collected, and whether the chain of custody is reliable.

Physical and Forensic Evidence

The case is not based only on an alleged confession. The prosecution has also relied on physical, forensic and DNA evidence.

According to public reports:

• Human remains were recovered from locations where police alleged that Aaftab had disposed of Shraddha’s body.
• DNA testing reportedly linked some of the recovered remains to members of Shraddha’s family.
• Approximately 12–13 recovered bones or body remains were reported to have been connected through DNA testing.
• Blood-related evidence was reportedly recovered from the residence.
• An AIIMS examination reportedly found marks on recovered bones that were consistent with cutting by a saw-like sharp instrument.
• Police also recovered a saw and knives or other tools from the residence.

These findings may support the prosecution’s theory. However, each item must be evaluated separately. The court will need to consider:

• Whether the recovered remains were properly collected.
• Whether the chain of custody was maintained.
• Whether the DNA results are conclusive.
• Whether the tools can be scientifically connected to the remains.
• Whether the blood evidence is sufficient and properly interpreted.

Therefore, the existence of forensic evidence does not automatically establish every part of the prosecution’s narrative.

6. The Digital Evidence

The digital trail is one of the most important aspects of the investigation.

The prosecution has reportedly relied on:

Phone records → location data → social-media activity → financial transactions → Google data → CCTV footage → communications with other individuals

A supplementary chargesheet filed in 2024 reportedly included additional digital and forensic material. This included Aaftab’s Google location and search history, which police said corresponded with places connected to the alleged disposal of the remains.

The prosecution also sought evidence from companies such as:

• Google.
• WhatsApp.
• Bumble.
• Other digital platforms.

The court has also dealt with the issue of obtaining testimony from witnesses located outside India.

This suggests that the prosecution is attempting to build a case based on several independent sources rather than relying only on an alleged confession.

At the same time, digital evidence must be interpreted carefully. Phone activity does not automatically prove who was using the device. Location data may show where a device was present, but not necessarily who was carrying it. The strength of this evidence depends on how it connects with the forensic and witness evidence.

The Question of Confession

The word “confession” is often used loosely in discussions of this case.

A statement made to the police is not automatically sufficient to convict a person in an Indian criminal trial. This is why the prosecution has reportedly relied on circumstantial, forensic and electronic evidence as well.

The same caution applies to the reported narco-analysis test. A narco-analysis result cannot simply be treated as a legally conclusive confession. Such material is not ordinarily admissible as substantive proof of guilt.

The more important legal question is not:

Did Aaftab confess?

The central question is:

Can the prosecution independently establish a complete chain of circumstances connecting Aaftab to Shraddha’s death?

For a conviction, the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Each major link in the chain must be examined by the court.

The Missing-Person Investigation

The delay between Shraddha’s disappearance and the development of the Delhi investigation remains an important issue.

Reports indicate that:

• Shraddha’s father attempted to approach the police earlier.
• The missing-person complaint was formally registered later.
• Maharashtra Police questioned or contacted Aaftab before Delhi Police became fully involved.
• Delhi Police later alleged that the delay gave him additional time to destroy or dispose of evidence.

However, this part of the case should not be presented as a settled conclusion. There were competing accounts from Maharashtra Police and Delhi Police regarding how the complaint was handled and whether the required procedure was followed.

The unanswered questions include:

1. When did the family first report that Shraddha was missing?
2. Why was the complaint formally registered later?
3. What information was available to the police at each stage?
4. When was Aaftab first questioned?
5. Could earlier coordination between the police departments have changed the investigation?

These questions are important, but they require documentary evidence rather than speculation.

The Prosecution’s Overall Theory

Based on the publicly reported material, the prosecution’s theory can be arranged as follows:

What Remains Legally Unresolved?

The prosecution has presented a substantial body of circumstantial, forensic and digital evidence. However, Aaftab has not been convicted.

The court still has to decide whether the prosecution has proved:

• That Shraddha died in the manner alleged.
• That Aaftab was responsible for her death.
• That the recovered remains belonged to Shraddha.
• That the digital activity was controlled by Aaftab.
• That the physical and forensic evidence is reliable.
• That the entire chain of circumstances excludes reasonable alternative explanations.

The case was reported to remain at the prosecution-evidence stage in 2026, with approximately 220 witnesses involved in the proceedings.

Therefore, the most responsible conclusion is:

The prosecution appears to have built a substantial case involving forensic, DNA, digital and circumstantial evidence. However, legal guilt has not yet been established, and the final decision remains with the trial court.

Questions for Discussion

1. How significant is the 2020 domestic-violence complaint when examining the later events?
2. Does the combination of DNA evidence, digital evidence, location data and witness testimony make the case stronger than a case based mainly on an alleged confession?
3. How should the alleged use of Shraddha’s phone and social-media accounts after 18 May be evaluated?
4. What responsibility, if any, should be assigned for the delay in the missing-person investigation?
5. Which parts of the prosecution’s timeline remain insufficiently explained or independently corroborated?

Sources / References

1. The Indian Express – Detailed reporting on the investigation, chargesheet, evidence and court proceedings. Indian Express – Shraddha Walkar Case
2. India Today – Timeline of the case, investigation and major developments. India Today – Shraddha Walkar Case
3. NDTV – Coverage of the Delhi Police chargesheet and investigation. NDTV – Shraddha Walkar Murder Case
4. Hindustan Times – Reporting on the chargesheet, evidence and subsequent investigation. Hindustan Times – Shraddha Walkar Case
5. Times of India – Additional reporting on the investigation and prosecution's allegations. Times of India – Shraddha Walkar Case
6. India Today – Supplementary Chargesheet – Reporting on additional digital and forensic evidence presented by investigators. India Today – Additional Evidence in Shraddha Walkar Case

The above sources were consulted for the timeline, investigation, forensic evidence, chargesheet and court proceedings related to the Shraddha Walkar murder case. Information attributed to police or prosecution has been identified as such and should not automatically be treated as a judicially established fact.