Raju Kantilal Rawal, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Raju Rawal appeals his conviction for the murder of Haley Losinski, with whom he had been involved in a secret sexual relationship. Security videos showed that Rawal last visited Losinski's home in the early morning hours of February 23, 2023, and that no one entered or exited her home afterward until her body was discovered four days later. Rawal, whose DNA was found on jewelry Losinski wore at her death, initially lied to police about when he last visited her. A jury found Rawal guilty of murder and Rawal appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. We affirm.

Facts

[2] Rawal, 67, and Losinski, 35, were engaged in a sexual relationship for several years before Losinski's death in 2023. When they visited at Losinski's home, Rawal often brought alcohol to Losinski, who struggled with alcohol addiction. Cell phone records revealed they were each other's most often contacted persons, with Losinski initiating most of their communications.

[3] In January and February 2023, Rawal found out that his coworker (Coworker) had been meeting with Losinski in the back of the gas station where Rawal worked. Around this same time, Losinski ended her contact with Coworker, sending him, at Rawal's insistence, a text message threatening to call police if he came to her house. Losinski and Coworker last communicated February 20, 2023, when she sent him a text message stating, “No more.” Id. at 185.

[4] On February 20, 2023, Losinski visited her parents’ home and left after an argument after she was denied alcohol due to her addiction. This was the last time Losinski's parents saw her alive. Between February 20 and 23, Rawal was captured on home security cameras visiting Losinski's home as much as twice daily.

[5] The last text communication between Rawal and Losinski occurred on February 22 at 10:32 a.m., and Rawal last visited Losinski's home in the early morning hours of February 23. Although Rawal and Losinski often scheduled his visits by phone or through text messages, Rawal did not text or phone Losinski in advance of this final visit, and he turned off his headlights before entering her driveway. Rawal left about 20 or 30 minutes later—just before 4 a.m.—and never texted Losinski again. Later that day, Rawal advised Losinski's father to check on her because Rawal was concerned that she had been urinating in her bed.

[6] Security videos showed no other person or vehicle entered or exited Losinski's residence after Rawal's departure on February 23 until February 27. That day, Losinski's parents went to her house to check on her and found all the doors to the home locked. Rawal was known to use a garage door opener to enter Losinski's home through the garage. When Losinski's parents entered the home, they found Losinski's body in her bedroom.

[7] The medical examiner determined Losinski's cause of death was homicide and that she died from blunt force trauma to the head from multiple, repeated blows. Decomposition analysis showed that she likely had died between February 23 and 25. Rawal's DNA was found on Losinski's belly ring, which she wore at her death.

[8] When police interviewed Rawal on March 1, he initially claimed he could not remember when he last visited Losinski's residence. Only after further questioning did he disclose his visit on February 23. Rawal also acknowledged his jealousy over Losinski's potential involvement with Coworker. Coworker was investigated but ruled out as a suspect because his cell phone data showed he was not near Losinski's home during the relevant period. In addition, Coworker's DNA was not found at the scene or on Losinski's person.

[9] The State charged Rawal with murder. Following a jury trial, Rawal was convicted and sentenced to 60 years imprisonment. He appeals his conviction.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Rawal challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his murder conviction. When reviewing sufficiency claims, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. Perry v. State, 258 N.E.3d 1028, 1031 (Ind. 2005). “We consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it.” Id. “We will affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value such that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

[11] To convict Rawal of murder, the State had to prove he knowingly or intentionally killed Losinski. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1). Rawal contends the State presented only circumstantial evidence of opportunity to kill without excluding other reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

[12] But circumstantial evidence alone may sustain a murder conviction. Peters v. State, 959 N.E.2d 347, 355 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Such evidence need not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, provided the inferences reasonably support the verdict. Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 133 (Ind. 2016).

[13] The record shows Rawal had the motive and opportunity to murder Losinski. Rawal, who admittedly was jealous of Losinski's relationship with Coworker, exhibited unusual behavior on February 23, the date of his last visit to her house. He showed up without notifying Losinski in advance and turned off his car headlights when arriving and departing. The evidence suggested Rawal was the last person to see Losinski alive, given that security video showed no one else entered Losinski's home until her body was discovered on February 27.

[14] Despite years of daily contact with Losinski, Rawal never attempted to reach her again after his departure from her home on the morning of February 23. But Rawal informed Losinski's father that day that he should check on Losinski. Moreover, physical evidence—Rawal's DNA on Losinski's belly ring—connected Rawal to the murder.

[15] Rawal posits that someone could have entered Losinski's home after he left on February 23. But the doors to the home were locked when her body was discovered. Moreover, two detectives testified collectively that security cameras were positioned to capture the entire front of the residence and would have detected any motion in the unlit backyard. The detectives reviewed days of security footage from these cameras and found no one else besides Rawal entering Losinski's home during the critical timeframe.

[16] Moreover, Rawal's claim that the estimated earliest time of death was 18 hours after he left Losinski's home on February 23 misconstrues the pathologist's testimony, which placed Losinski's death within about four days before the discovery of her body on February 27. This timing implicates Rawal, given that he was the only person seen entering Losinski's home during that timeframe.

[17] In a circumstantial case like this, “no single piece of evidence in isolation—no ‘smoking gun’—is offered to persuade the jury to convict.” Young v. State, 198 N.E.3d 1172, 1176 (Ind. 2022). “Yet a jury may be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, by looking at ‘a web of facts in which no single strand may be dispositive.’ ” Id. (quoting Kriner v. State, 699 N.E.2d 659, 664 (Ind. 1998).

[18] As in Young, the pieces of evidence here “fit together into a coherent whole that incriminates” Rawal. Id. at 1177. The totality of the evidence and related reasonable inferences favorable to the judgment are “substantially probative” of Rawal's guilt. Id.; see Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1245 (Ind. 2024) (“Though presence at the scene alone is not sufficient to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a defendant's presence combined with other circumstantial evidence is.”). Rawal's complaints to the contrary are merely requests to reweigh the evidence that we decline.

[19] We affirm Rawal's conviction for murder.

Weissmann, Judge.

Judges Bailey and Brown concur. Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.