Back
Forensic Evidence Should Aid, Not Burden Survivors of Gender Violence:
In a powerful address at a training workshop in Goa, former Additional Solicitor General of India
underscored a critical principle that should guide the handling of forensic evidence in cases involving sexual and gender-based violence: forensic science must serve to strengthen prosecutions, not add to the already heavy burden carried by survivors. Speaking on Saturday, Anand emphasized that better forensic practices should
"strengthen cases before courts without creating an additional
for survivors."
The statement comes at a time when Indian courts and law enforcement agencies are grappling with the integration of forensic science into the criminal justice system, particularly in sensitive cases where the victim’s testimony is often central. Anand’s remarks highlight a growing consensus among legal experts that while forensic evidence can be invaluable, its application must be carefully calibrated to avoid re-traumatizing survivors or imposing unrealistic evidentiary expectations.
The Evolving Role of Forensic Evidence in Sensitive Cases
Forensic evidence—such as DNA analysis, medical reports, and digital footprints—has long been hailed as a game-changer in criminal investigations. In sexual assault cases, it can corroborate a survivor’s account, identify perpetrators, and even exonerate the wrongly accused. However, the collection and presentation of such evidence often create a paradox. While intended to provide objective proof, it can inadvertently shift the focus away from the survivor’s narrative and onto technical details that may be challenging to obtain or interpret.
’s intervention is timely. In many Indian courtrooms, survivors are subjected to grueling cross-examinations where every piece of forensic evidence—or its absence—is used to question credibility. For instance, the lack of a DNA match or a delayed medical examination may be misconstrued as a sign of falsehood. This, Anand argued, defeats the purpose of forensic science. Instead of becoming a tool for justice, it risks becoming a weapon of defence.
The Legal Framework: and Survivor Protection
Under Indian criminal law, the in sexual offences lies with the prosecution. Yet, in practice, survivors often feel compelled to provide extensive forensic corroboration to meet judicial expectations. While the , and the , do not mandate forensic evidence as a prerequisite for conviction, courts have increasingly relied on it—sometimes to the detriment of cases where such evidence is unavailable or contaminated.
Anand’s remarks align with the principles laid down by the in landmark judgments such as and , which emphasized the need for a survivor-centric approach. The top court has repeatedly stressed that the testimony of a survivor, if credible, is sufficient to convict. However, the reality on the ground often diverges. Prosecutors and investigating officers may be reluctant to proceed without “scientific” evidence, creating a hurdle.
: A Voice of Experience
As a former Additional Solicitor General of India, has argued numerous cases before the and various high courts, including high-profile matters involving women’s rights and criminal law. Her stature lends weight to the message delivered at the Goa workshop, which was organised for judicial officers, prosecutors, and forensic experts. The training aimed to sensitise participants on the proper collection, preservation, and presentation of forensic evidence in gender-based violence cases.
Anand’s statement reflects a deep understanding of the interplay between law and forensics. She noted that the goal of forensic evidence is to aid the search for truth, not to create an “additional .” This observation is particularly important for legal professionals who must balance scientific advancements with the fundamental rights of survivors to dignity and fair trial.
Challenges in Forensic Practice
Despite advances, forensic infrastructure in India remains uneven. Many regions lack well-equipped laboratories, trained personnel, and standardised protocols for evidence collection. In sexual assault cases, the “” was only formally banned by the in , after decades of misuse. Similarly, delays in medical examinations, contamination of samples, and lack of records often undermine the reliability of forensic evidence.
Anand’s call for “better forensic practices” implies not only technical improvement but also a change in mindset. Forensic experts must understand that their reports can profoundly impact survivors. An insensitive examination or a suggestive report can deter a survivor from pursuing justice. Conversely, a trauma-informed approach to evidence collection can reinforce the survivor’s credibility and reduce .
The Impact on Legal Practice
For lawyers and judges, Anand’s message serves as a reminder to scrutinise forensic evidence critically without imposing its absence as a failure. Defence counsel should not be allowed to weaponise gaps in forensics to intimidate survivors, and courts should apply the same as in other crimes. The principle of and the in sexual offences require a delicate balance.
Moreover, the workshop in Goa signals a growing recognition that judges and prosecutors need specialised training in forensic science. Understanding the limitations and strengths of DNA analysis, toxicology, and digital forensics can prevent miscarriages of justice. Anand’s remarks encourage the legal fraternity to embrace evidence-based adjudication while remaining vigilant against the misuse of scientific jargon.
A Systemic Call for Reform
’s statement is not merely a comment on individual cases but a systemic call to action. It urges policymakers, forensic laboratories, and the judiciary to collaborate in creating a survivor-friendly ecosystem. This includes simplifying the process of evidence collection, ensuring that survivors are informed about what to expect, and providing psychological support during forensic examinations.
The ultimate goal is to make forensic evidence a tool that empowers survivors rather than a hurdle they must overcome. As Anand put it, the evidence should “strengthen cases before courts.” This vision aligns with global standards, such as the and the , which prioritise the rights and well-being of survivors.
Conclusion
In an era where forensic science increasingly shapes courtroom outcomes, the insight from former Additional Solicitor General resounds with clarity: the justice system must resist the temptation to place the squarely on survivors’ shoulders through forensic demands. Instead, forensic evidence should illuminate the truth, not cast shadows of doubt on the courageous individuals who come forward.
The training workshop in Goa represents a step forward in sensitising legal professionals to this nuanced perspective. As India continues to reform its criminal justice response to gender-based violence, Anand’s words will likely influence how judges, prosecutors, and forensic experts approach their roles. The law must evolve to ensure that science serves justice—and never becomes its adversary.
