On 23rd January 1996, Priyadarshini Mattoo, a final-year law student at Delhi University, was found murdered at her house in Vasant Kunj. During the investigation, police did not find any eyewitness who had seen what had happened inside the house. Investigators had to work with the material left behind, medical findings, witness accounts and the movements of people connected to the victim.
The investigators collected vaginal swabs, blood samples and other evidence from the body and the house. Blood samples were also obtained from a man named Santosh Kumar Singh, who was accused of raping and murdering her. The biological material and reference samples were sent to Hyderabad for DNA examination. The forensic scientists examining them were dealing with a specific question: could biological material recovered during the investigation be associated with Singh?
Singh was acquitted by the trial court in 1999. However, the Delhi High Court reversed the acquittal and awarded him the death penalty. However, while the Supreme Court upheld his conviction in 2010, it commuted his death penalty to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court recorded the biological samples examined, the DNA findings and the objections raised against them at trial before considering the scientific evidence with the rest of the prosecution case.
Notably, DNA examination was only a part of the investigation and it did not supply investigators with a ready-made account of the crime. It allowed biological material to be compared with a known person. Fingerprints work in much the same investigative sequence, although the science is entirely different. An impression recovered from a crime scene must contain usable ridge detail, be examined and, where the source is unknown, searched against records that may produce possible candidates.
Both forms of identification therefore begin with material whose owner is not necessarily known. The laboratory or fingerprint bureau has to move from that material to a scientifically supportable association, exclusion or inconclusive result. Investigators and courts then have to decide what the result means in the circumstances of the case.
DNA profiling examines selected regions of genetic material. Depending on the case, the starting material collected could be blood, semen, saliva, tissue, bone, hair containing suitable biological material or another recoverable biological trace. Scientists generate a DNA profile and compare it with a reference profile or use it for kinship assessment.
On the other hand, fingerprint examiners work with friction-ridge impressions left by fingers and palms. A print recovered from a surface may be compared directly with the fingerprints of a known person or searched against stored records when investigators do not know who left it.
India developed its indigenous DNA fingerprinting capability through work at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad. According to CSIR, CCMB scientists developed indigenous DNA fingerprinting probes in 1988, which allowed individual-specific DNA patterns to be generated and used for identification.
Later, the specialised Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics developed DNA fingerprinting as one of its principal services for crime investigation agencies and other identification work.
When evidence enters fingerprint and DNA fingerprinting systems, it behaves differently. DNA can deteriorate, occur in very small quantities or contain genetic material from several people. On the other hand, a fingerprint may be incomplete, smudged, distorted by pressure or movement, or overlap another impression. There is no guarantee that the laboratory will obtain a useful result even if either or both types of evidence are available.
When we talk about biological material, it could be a stain, swab or a piece of tissue that reaches the laboratory. There could be a name attached to it, or it could be anonymous. First, scientists have to recover DNA of sufficient quality and quantity for analysis. The material received by the laboratory is processed to extract DNA. The condition of the material may already limit what can be recovered.
Heat, moisture, decomposition, contamination and environmental exposure can damage biological material. However, sometimes even a small trace of evidence contains enough DNA for profiling.
Notably, for routine forensic identification, laboratories do not have to sequence a person’s complete genome. They examine selected genetic markers that vary sufficiently between individuals to make comparison useful. Short tandem repeats, or STRs, are among the principal markers used for this purpose. They are short DNA sequences repeated a varying number of times at particular locations in the genome.
The relevant regions are amplified, producing enough DNA for analysis, and laboratory instruments detect the alleles present at the selected STR locations. The combination forms the forensic profile that can then be compared with another profile.
A single-source sample containing sufficient DNA may give a comparatively clear profile. Evidence from an object handled by several people may produce a mixture. Low quantities of DNA can also lead to information dropping out of the profile, while technical artefacts can complicate interpretation.
According to National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) 2024 scientific foundation review of DNA mixture interpretation, modern methods can obtain profiles from extremely small amounts of biological material. However, sensitivity has also increased the frequency of complicated mixtures and questions about contamination, transfer and relevance. NIST is a US government body.
Collection before the sample reaches a laboratory is part of the same forensic process. In a Lok Sabha reply on 10th December 2024, the Ministry of Home Affairs said projects from 30 States and Union Territories for strengthening DNA analysis and cyber-forensic capacity had been approved for Rs 245.29 crore, of which Rs 185.28 crore had then been released.
The Ministry also said 32,524 investigating officers, prosecutors and medical officers had been trained in the collection, storage and handling of DNA evidence and the use of Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kits, with 18,020 kits distributed to States and Union Territories.
The same parliamentary reply said quality manuals had been issued for laboratory accreditation under ISO 17025 standards, including DNA divisions, along with guidelines for collection, preservation and transportation of forensic evidence in sexual-assault cases. A biological trace may therefore pass through several critical stages before an analyst even begins comparing profiles: collection, packaging, preservation, transport, extraction, testing and interpretation.
Once a laboratory has produced a DNA profile, investigators still need something against which it can be compared. One route is a reference sample from a known individual. If an investigation concerns a particular suspect, an appropriately obtained reference sample can be analysed and its profile compared with the evidentiary material.
Investigators may also compare biological traces recovered from different places. Profiles from separate items can help examine whether the biological material could have originated from the same individual, even when that person’s identity has not yet been established.
The procedure changes when the person being identified is dead or missing and investigators do not have a direct reference sample from that person. Biological relatives can provide samples for kinship examination. For example, a father and son are not expected to have identical DNA profiles. Scientists assess whether the observed genetic information follows the inheritance pattern expected from the claimed relationship.
The UMID project at AIIMS New Delhi uses this method for unidentified bodies and missing persons. Its original peer-reviewed research described STR profiles being generated from unidentified bodies and compared with profiles obtained from biological relatives who came forward as claimants. The researchers reported 255 individuals in the database and two identifications by December 2020. Those numbers belong to the project’s early phase and no longer describe its present size.
Crime reporting frequently compresses DNA evidence into the word “match”. The laboratory result can contain much more information, and sometimes much less certainty, than that word suggests.
For a suitable single-source profile, scientists can examine whether the DNA characteristics in the evidentiary sample correspond with those in the reference sample and assess the statistical strength of the finding. A person can also be excluded when the profiles contain incompatible genetic information. Other samples may be too poor, incomplete or complicated to support either conclusion.
Statistical evidence has to be described carefully. The rarity of a DNA profile among unrelated individuals is not the probability that an accused person is innocent. One calculation concerns how likely particular genetic findings would be under stated assumptions. Guilt depends on all the evidence in the case.
Furthermore, mixtures add another layer. A sample containing DNA from several people may have many possible combinations of contributors. Modern statistical methods assess the strength of competing propositions using the observed profile rather than treating every shared allele as a simple match. NIST’s review covers interpretation at the source and sub-source levels as well as more difficult activity-level questions involving how DNA was transferred, persisted and recovered.
A person’s DNA on an object cannot ordinarily establish by itself when the material was deposited or exactly how it arrived there. DNA can be transferred by direct contact, and small quantities can sometimes move indirectly. The location, quantity and condition of biological material have to be examined with the circumstances in which it was recovered.
The Mattoo case contained that wider evidentiary assessment. The Supreme Court considered the DNA findings together with medical evidence and other circumstances recorded during the investigation. The scientific examination could associate biological material with Singh. The judgment on rape and murder depended on the complete record placed before the court.
Fingerprint examination begins with the impression itself. Investigators commonly use “chance print” for an impression recovered during examination of a crime scene, while forensic literature also uses “latent print”, particularly for an impression that requires development before it can be examined.
A crime-scene print may contain only part of a finger. The person may have moved while touching the surface. Varying pressure may alter the impression, and the underlying material may affect the ridge detail. Glass, paper, painted surfaces and rough materials do not necessarily preserve impressions in the same way.
Examiners study the ridge information available in the recovered impression and compare it with a known print. The examination process is commonly described as ACE-V: analysis, comparison, evaluation and verification. During analysis, the examiner assesses the quality and quantity of useful detail. Comparison places the unknown and known impressions alongside each other. Evaluation leads to a conclusion, while verification provides further examination according to the procedure followed by the agency.
An automated fingerprint search adds a computerised step when investigators do not already have a known person for comparison. The recovered print can be searched against a large repository, producing possible candidates for further examination. The database search and the examiner’s conclusion are separate stages.
India’s National Automated Fingerprint Identification System was created to allow fingerprint records held across jurisdictions to be searched through a national repository.
A Rajya Sabha reply dated 4th December 2024 said the fingerprint identification systems of all States and Union Territories had been integrated with NAFIS. The National Crime Records Bureau had provided equipment to districts, police commissionerates, State fingerprint bureaux, the Central Fingerprint Bureau and central law-enforcement agencies. The searchable repository contained 1.06 crore criminal fingerprint records as of 31st October 2024, according to the reply.
By March 2026, the official figure had increased substantially. In a written Rajya Sabha answer on 18 March, the Ministry of Home Affairs said NAFIS held 1.26 crore fingerprint records, with around 90,000 records being added every month. It reported that 8,831 chance prints had been traced using NAFIS since its launch in August 2022. The Ministry linked those searches with interstate and older unsolved cases, although that is the government’s assessment of the system’s investigative impact rather than a count of subsequent convictions.
The same answer shows that national availability and use at every police station are not identical. The Ministry said money had been allocated under ICJS 2.0 for hardware, including Fingerprint Enrollment Devices, but 100% adoption at police stations depended on procurement by States and Union Territories.
The database crossed another official milestone three months later. At the 26th All India Fingerprint Conference on 19th June 2026, the Ministry of Home Affairs put the repository at 1.29 crore fingerprint records and launched NCRB-Abhigyan. The government describes the mobile application as allowing field police personnel to search the national fingerprint database using a certified fingerprint scanner.
A crime-scene impression can consequently be searched against records accumulated far beyond the jurisdiction in which it was recovered. The returned candidate still has to be examined, and the person’s connection with the offence has to be investigated separately.
Haryana Police provided one example in October 2025 while releasing figures on its use of NAFIS. According to a police statement reported by PTI, fingerprints of two accused in a Gurugram robbery case matched NAFIS records linking them with several crimes in southern India. Police said the comparison led investigators to an interstate gang.
The same Haryana Police data showed how heavily outcomes depend on the quality and availability of prints. During 2024, police said they lifted 2,392 chance prints and obtained 916 successful NAFIS matches. Up to 31st August 2025, 2,865 chance prints had been lifted, while 115 produced successful matches. The statement also said fingerprints had helped identify 16 unidentified bodies in 2024 and another 15 during 2025 up to that point.
Those are police figures describing investigative results, not judicial outcomes. Identification of a person from a fingerprint record may lead to questioning, arrest or further collection of evidence. Charge-sheeting and conviction occur later and require their own evidentiary basis.
Forensic identification also serves families looking for somebody who has disappeared. Bodies recovered after accidents, decomposition or severe injuries may not be recognisable visually. Clothing, jewellery, scars, tattoos and other physical features can help narrow a search, but they do not always establish identity.
UMID, the Unidentified Bodies, Missing Persons Identification Portal and DNA Database, was developed at AIIMS New Delhi under an ICMR-funded project. The initial work concentrated on bodies handled by the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology at AIIMS, particularly from South and South-East Delhi. Biological material such as teeth, bone, blood or other suitable tissue is collected during autopsy with the investigating officer’s consent. Phenotypic information obtained from the inquest and post-mortem records is also entered into the system, while STR profiles are generated for the internal DNA database.
AIIMS New Delhi now serves as the coordinating centre for a network that includes Maulana Azad Medical College, AIIMS Rishikesh, AIIMS Jodhpur, AIIMS Bhopal, AIIMS Bhubaneswar and JIPMER Puducherry as participating centres. The portal also lists several additional centres as active. Samples collected through the seven principal centres are sent to AIIMS New Delhi for STR profiling and inclusion in the database. The genetic profiles are not publicly displayed, although descriptive information about unidentified bodies can be searched.
The live portal, accessed in September 2026, listed 2,185 unidentified dead bodies, 20 claimants and four persons identified. A relative searching for a missing person can examine public records for a possible connection, contact the relevant police station or a participating centre and provide a blood or saliva sample if the case proceeds to DNA comparison.
One of those identifications began at Hazrat Nizamuddin railway station on 3 March 2026. An unidentified male with severe facial injuries was found after a railway accident and taken to LNJP Mortuary. His post-mortem was conducted at Maulana Azad Medical College, where blood-stained gauze and a tooth were preserved for DNA examination and information about the deceased was uploaded to UMID.
On 25th May, a man approached Hazrat Nizamuddin police regarding his 19-year-old son, who had been missing since the evening of the accident. A blood sample from the father was collected at AIIMS. UMID records that STR profiles were generated from both the unidentified deceased and the claimant and that searching the claimant’s profile against the database returned a single corresponding result. Kinship analysis supported the conclusion that the claimant was the biological father of the deceased.
The identification operation following the Air India Flight AI171 crash in Ahmedabad in June 2025 required the same basic science to be carried out across a mass-fatality incident.
Flight AI171 crashed shortly after departing Ahmedabad for London Gatwick on 12th June 2025. The Union Home Ministry said that relatives who had reached Ahmedabad were being asked to provide DNA samples and that samples would also be collected from relatives arriving from abroad. Gujarat’s Forensic Science Laboratory and the National Forensic Sciences University were tasked with the DNA work.
Ahmedabad Civil Hospital subsequently issued instructions for the handover of bodies after matching. Relatives who had supplied DNA were to be contacted on registered telephone numbers once the match had been completed. The hospital also had to prepare the post-mortem report, death certificate and other legal documentation before the remains could be released. On 14th June, the government said nine new DNA matches had been completed and one body had already been handed over.
In July 2026, NFSU Vice-Chancellor J M Vyas said DNA testing for all 270 deceased had been completed within ten days. The number refers to the identification exercise described by NFSU and should not be confused with the number of people who had been aboard the aircraft, since fatalities also occurred on the ground.
Every sample from human remains had to remain connected to an individual case identifier. Family reference samples had to be linked to the correct claimant, laboratory findings had to be reconciled with available records, and legal documentation had to follow before handover. DNA provided the biological identification; the administrative process ensured that the result was connected with the right person and family.
India’s identification systems do not sit inside one universal database serving every purpose. NAFIS is a national repository of criminal fingerprints. UMID is an AIIMS-ICMR project that uses DNA and descriptive information to help identify unidentified bodies and reconnect them with relatives. Police systems separately hold missing-person and unidentified-body information.
The government’s expanding forensic data infrastructure adds another system. In a Lok Sabha reply on 12th August 2025, the Ministry of Home Affairs said the e-Forensics platform connected 117 Central and State forensic science laboratories. The same reply said the government had approved a National Forensic Data Centre with an outlay of Rs 200.16 crore for the electronic storage and management of forensic data.
The March 2026 Rajya Sabha reply supplied a more specific description of the proposed data centre. It said the NFDC had been approved to store forensic data, including biological and DNA samples received in crime cases from forensic laboratories, for evidence management.
The categories of information also come from different people for different reasons. A criminal fingerprint repository, a sample submitted as evidence in a criminal case and DNA voluntarily provided by a father trying to identify his missing son cannot be treated as interchangeable simply because each may assist identification.
Questions over access, retention and permitted uses become more important as these systems become connected. For relatives submitting samples for kinship identification, genetic information also contains information about people who are not accused of any offence. The design of future databases will determine how far information collected for one forensic purpose can be used for another.
DNA profiling can associate biological material with a person, support a family relationship or exclude someone from a particular sample. Fingerprint examination can connect an impression with a stored record or eliminate a candidate after comparison. Both can also fail when the material is too poor for a reliable conclusion.
None of those outcomes reconstructs an offence on its own. DNA on an object does not automatically reveal when it was deposited or the activity that put it there. A fingerprint does not explain why the person touched the surface. A candidate returned by NAFIS is not a conviction, just as a DNA association is not a judicial finding of guilt.
For families of unidentified people, the same sciences perform a different task. A tooth preserved during a post-mortem or an old fingerprint record can connect a body carrying no name with someone who has been searching for it.
From here, the investigation moves from biological traces and ridge impressions to evidence stored inside phones, computers, CCTV systems and cloud accounts. There, investigators face another identification problem: establishing not merely which device or account contains the evidence, but who was actually using it.
At ONGC’s August 2026 AGM, Chairman A.K. Singh said the company will invest about ₹1 lakh crore in cash over five years to drill 87 deepwater wells by March 2031, roughly ₹20,000 crore a year. They’ll start slow with just four wells in FY26, but plan to crank it up to 27 in the final year. Singh didn’t mince words about why they’re in such a mad dash, either: India’s crude output has been sliding downhill for eleven straight years.
The journey from a recovered exhibit to courtroom evidence involves documentation, packing, sealing, dispatch, scientific examination and legal scrutiny, with delays often hidden between police custody, laboratory receipt, reporting and collection of the final report.
The recent momentum following Semicon India 2026 has been met with a familiar wave of digital cynicism, with critics dismissing chip packaging as mere “screwdriver technology.” This profound misunderstanding ignores the staggering complexity of modern electronics. From picosecond automated testing to thermal encapsulation, explore why Assembly, Testing, Marking, and Packaging (ATMP) is a deeply complex, non-negotiable pillar of global technology.
Selected issues, clear explanations and thoughtful perspectives—delivered when we publish.
