On the occasion of World DNA Day, Prof. (Dr.) Pinky Anand, Senior Advocate and Former Additional Solicitor General of India released the Standard Operating Procedures (‘SOP’) on Collection and Processing of Scientific/Forensic Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases on Women. The event took place on 26-04-2025 at the Police Headquarters in Panjim, Goa. It was graced by Justice Bharati Dangre, Judge, Bombay High Court (Chief Guest) and Justice Nivedita Mehta (Guest of Honor). This ceremonial release witnessed engaging discussions among eminent legal, forensic, and policy experts underscoring the SOP’s vital role in ensuring scientific rigor, victim dignity, and systemic sensitivity in combating sexual violence.
In her opening address Prof. (Dr.) Pinky Anand, emphasised the critical need for the newly formulated SOPs in the context of the criminal justice system. She observed that investigation remains one of the most vital components for securing convictions and highlighted that the SOP document is intended to serve as a comprehensive guiding framework. As Chair, she acknowledged the tireless efforts of the Committee including Dr. Keshav Kumar, Retd. DGP, Forensic Expert, Dr. Robert Green, and Advocates- Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Ms. Pallavi Chopra and Ms. Gauri Goburdhun. Briefly reflecting on the significance of World DNA Day, she also explained the evolving role of scientific evidence in criminal proceedings.
Underscoring the importance of SOP, Dr. Anand stated that violence against women takes place in many forms, and the most gruesome one is sexual violence. She highlighted that India has worked towards ending sexual violence, facilitating reparations and bringing justice to the victims by giving due attention to this issue under the new criminal laws and introduction of gender-based laws, such as Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and the amendments after the Nirbhaya case.
Drawing from her tenure as a member of the Rajya Sabha Committee responsible for reviewing the new criminal laws, Dr. Anand highlighted three major objectives reflected in the new legislative framework:
-
Introduction and codification of modernised legal provisions;
-
Emphasis on gender sensitivity, particularly the protection of women and children; and
-
Enhanced victim support mechanisms alongside the inclusion of provisions for digital evidence.
Reflecting on her campaign on DNA, Dr. Anand stated how, so far, issues were being pushed under the carpet, especially sexual violence. She remarked how the perception around sexual violence had changed as the victims no longer felt ashamed, but rather acknowledged that they were victims and demanded justice as well as reparations. She also mentioned that the Good Samaritan guidelines were laid out for motor accident cases, similar to the guidelines in the present SOP.
Concluding her address, Dr. Anand shed light on the Division Bench judgment- Court in its own motion letter dated 19.12.2011 from Joint Secretary, In re, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 6610 , wherein Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Gaurang Kanth dealt with the factum of DNA analysis and forensic science. She ended on an optimistic note by stating that judgments like these outline the practical steps that should be taken, “We need to really have more of these methods and guidelines in order to effectively investigate these incidents.”
Taking over from Dr. Anand, Mr. Alok Kumar, Director General of Prosecution, Goa Police, addressing the panel remarked that the present discussion touches not only the letter of the law but it’s very spirit. He stated that this was not just a procedural conversation but rather a reaffirmation of the duty to protect, to respond with sensitivity, and to uphold truth through science.
He underscored the history of forensic science wherein he spoke about ancient texts such as Charak Samhita, Sushutra Samhita, and Arthashastra, which contained observations on human anatomy, trauma analysis, evidence interpretation, crime scene examination, use of physical evidence, etc.
“Forensic science is not a modern invention. It has been deeply embedded in our civilizational fabric.”
Highlighting that sexual violence was not just a violation of the body but of trust, dignity, and human rights, Mr. Kumar stated that the State’s response to such acts must be rooted in sensitivity, professionalism, and precision. This is where the role of forensic science becomes crucial. “The collection and processing of scientific evidence can make the difference between justice served and justice denied.”
While speaking about the SOPs, he underscored that there are three aimed critical outcomes, which are as follows:
-
Ensuring timely, ethical, and accurate evidence collection.
-
Preserving the dignity, privacy, and emotional well-being of the victim.
-
Strengthening the chain of investigation and prosecution through scientific rigor.
He added that the SOP was a commitment to act with professional integrity and human compassion. Mr. Kumar stated that from the moment a survivor walks into a police station or hospital, every stakeholder, from the first responder to the forensic expert, must follow a consistent, legally sound, and victim-centered approach. He added that every piece of evidence carried a voice, and their value depended on how responsibly they were collected, measured, and preserved.
Lastly, he concluded by urging the stakeholders to treat the SOP as a living framework, shaped by empathy, accountability, and discipline.
“Our goal is justice with dignity for the survivor, for the system, and for the society we serve.”
Thereafter, Mr. Amod Kanth, Founder of Prayas and former IPS Office, addressed the audience by speaking about the introduction of Crisis Intervention Centers and the National Child Helpline, adding the aspect of sexual assault of children in this SOP, and about his organization. While reflecting on his experience while conducting the National Study on Child Abuse in 2005, he underlined that the results of the study were horrifying as it was revealed that nearly 70 percent of Indian children were being abused. In terms of sexual abuse, he stated that 53 percent of children reported that they had faced one or more forms of sexual abuse, and 21 percent faced severe forms of sexual abuse. Mr. Kanth added that this study laid the groundwork for the introduction of the Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’).
He also spoke about the criminal law amendment of 2013, trafficking under Indian laws, crimes against children, the organisation named Just Rights for Children Alliance, support persons under POCSO, child pornography, changes in POCSO, and much more. Lastly, while concluding his address, he provided some suggestions for the SOP from the aspect of child rights.
Underlining the importance of forensic science, Dr. Keshav Kumar, Retd. DGP, a Forensic Expert, shed light on a few cases where the Supreme Court had acquitted convicts due to a faulty chain of circumstantial evidence, discrepancies and omissions in witness statements, suspicious extrajudicial evidence, etc. He also recounted an instance where a man spent 1.5 years in judicial custody for murdering his wife, who was subsequently found to be alive. He discussed Karandeep Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand 2025 SCC OnLine SC 773, wherein the accused was acquitted of the rape and murder of a minor girl due to major forensic evidence and investigative lapses.
In light of these illustrations, Dr. Keshav stressed the key issues that had to be addressed, namely, the forensic chain of evidence, legally admitting DNA evidence, proper collection of evidence with sterile tools, immediate sealing and labelling, documented chain of custody, storage in controlled condition, timely transmission to a forensic science laboratory, expert testimony to explain the report, etc. Highlighting the failings and implications from Karandeep Sharma (supra), he remarked, “Even strong forensic links fail if procedural rigour is ignored”.
Concluding his speech, Dr. Keshav underscored the relevance of this SOP and provided some important suggestions, which were as follows:
-
strict adherence to forensic SOPs;
-
scientifically proved DNA reports;
-
mandatory expert testimony;
-
meticulous documentation of the chain of custody;
-
proper sealing, labelling, and storage of evidence with reliable and scientific techniques;
-
cross-verification of collection timelines; and
-
judicial awareness of forensic limitations.
Adding to the discourse, Dr. Robert Green, Professor of Natural Sciences, reflected on his experience of meeting victims of sexual and gender-based violence as part of his study. He spoke about how 90 percent of such perpetrators reoffended, and only one-third of them were convicted.
Mirroring Dr. Keshav’s view, Dr Green talked about the unfortunate subjectivity in interpretation, the need for experts, and the lack of a standardized or uniform procedure.
He also underscored the important aspects that were incorporated into the SOP, such as a victim-centered approach. He remarked that the victims were owed effective investigations and minimization of re-traumatization during the investigation.
“We can have all the technology in the world, but unless we have some judicial colleagues who know the right questions to ask, and some police officers that will drive this, then the technology really does not go very far.”
Lastly, he concluded by stating that for the success of this project, it was important to effectively implement these SOPs, have blind proficiency tests, maintain vigilance in the chain of evidence procedures, and reign in the resources, support, and coordination of senior stakeholders.
Thereafter, Mr. Edgar McConnell, Business Development Manager, Rapid DNA, Thermo Fisher Scientific, delivered an insightful presentation on ‘Rapid-DNA Technology’. He spoke about the Rapid DNA technology, which compresses the standard DNA analysis into a 90-minute process, and how it was developed to be used by non-technical personnel and investigators, like police officers, FBI agents, or any law enforcement officer, in the field or on the crime scene. He underscored that such technology was important in light of the increasing use of DNA analysis and evidence in law enforcement.
Mr. McConnell also highlighted the benefits of this technology such as the provision of DNA results across a much wider range of case types, automated workflows which improve efficiency in sample processing speed and capacity, real-time collaboration and data sharing between crime labs and law enforcement stakeholder agencies, and simple and streamlined process. Lastly, he spoke about the key applications of Rapid DNA and examples of its present and future usage.
Concluding the event, Justice Bharti Dangre, through her powerful address, underlined the persistent challenges within India’s criminal justice system, particularly in prosecuting sexual offences due to gaps in investigation and lack of uniformity in procedures.
Drawing from her vast experience as a Prosecutor for over 15 years, and as a Judge for 8 years, Justice Dangre emphasised the painful reality- that often, accused individuals are acquitted—not for lack of wrongdoing, but due to insufficient evidence that fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Dangre pointed out that one of the primary reasons for such acquittals is the lack of standardised procedures during the investigation phase. She welcomed the release of the SOP as a timely and much-needed step to guide stakeholders and streamline forensic processes.
Calling for broader application of the SOP, Justice Dangre echoed sentiments of other speakers, including Mr. Kanth and Mr. Keshav Kumar, in stressing the urgent need to expand its scope beyond women to also cover offences against children. She observed that crimes against minors are rapidly rising and deserve an equally stern legal response.
Highlighting the gravity of the situation, she referred to the 2022 report by the National Crime Records Bureau, which recorded 31,677 cases of crimes against women, including an average of 86 cases of sexual assault per day.
Justice Dangre also revisited the landmark Mathura rape case Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 143, which ignited the first major legal reform in custodial rape laws in India in 1983. Narrating the disturbing details of the case and the judicial journey from acquittal to Supreme Court review, she stressed how public outrage and scholarly activism led to significant amendments in Section 375 of the IPC, redefining rape and introducing the concept of custodial rape.
Reflecting on this, she recounted how the understanding of consent—a cornerstone in adjudicating sexual offences—has evolved but still poses significant interpretational challenges. She alluded to the infamous Mathura case that led to the 1983 amendment and the Nirbhaya case which triggered major changes in the legal framework, culminating in the expanded and more inclusive definition of rape in 2013.
Narrating on the daily struggles and systemic biases, Justice Dangre offered sobering insights into the everyday reality of survivors—from the humiliation at police stations to invasive medical examinations and repeated recounting of trauma during court proceedings.
“The victim relives the trauma multiple times—at the police station, at the hospital, before the magistrate, and again during cross-examination in court. Each stage compounds her ordeal”, she said.
She also acknowledged societal pressures that often suppress reporting, especially in cases involving incest or family members.
Justice Dangre also highlighted the increasing misuse or misapplication of the POCSO Act, especially in cases involving consensual relationships between minors aged 16—18. She shared her concern over statutory limitations imposed on trial court judges under POCSO, which often leave them with no discretion even in cases that warrant a nuanced view. “POCSO doesn’t prohibit falling in love—it prohibits sexual activity,” she said, sharing a troubling case where a 19-year-old boy was jailed for 11 months for expressing affection to a 17-year-old girl.
Moving ahead, she recounted a heartening case involving a young woman who had moved to Mumbai for employment, however tragically lost her life under suspicious circumstances. Justice Dhangre discussed how strong circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage tracing the victim’s last movements, was painstakingly discovered by investigators. Yet the conviction was reversed, owing to the absence of an unbroken chain of circumstances and gaps in forensic linkage. She observed, “Facts may lie, but circumstances and evidence do not. When circumstances strongly point toward a particular conclusion, they become solid proof.”
She also highlighted challenges that exist in the appreciation of forensic reports, including instances where crucial forensic corroborations were disbelieved due to procedural gaps. She emphasised the urgent need for clear, categorical forensic reporting, reiterating that solid and clinching evidence is the only way.
Applauding the initiative, she asserted that the newly developed SOP would help streamline evidence collection, minimise evidentiary gaps, and provide critical support for investigators, forensic experts, medical professionals, and the judiciary.
The session concluded with a collective commitment to work collaboratively towards implementing the SOP rigorously across agencies, thereby ensuring better investigation outcomes, more robust prosecutions, and, most importantly, justice for victims.