Hindu woman beaten and threatened with death by Muslim man for refusing conversion and marriage in Bengaluru
Bengaluru, Karnataka, India 
16 April, 2024
Case Summary
A Hindu woman working as a model in Bengaluru, Karnataka, was physically attacked by a Muslim man named Zuhaib in the Fraser Town area, leaving her with serious injuries to her face and the back of her head. He had been subjecting her to sustained pressure to marry him since 2024, and had sent explicit death threat messages stating he would kill her and that she deserved to die. The victim documented her injuries on video, which spread rapidly online. She filed a formal complaint with the Fraser Town police, and Zuhaib was arrested. The victim and Zuhaib had initially met through professional circles in the modelling industry. What began as a work-related acquaintance gradually became a personal connection. From 2024 onwards, Zuhaib began persistently pressuring the Hindu woman to marry him. Despite her repeated refusals, his behaviour became increasingly aggressive. He issued explicit death threats, warning that he would kill her if she continued to reject his proposal. WhatsApp messages attributed to him surfaced in which he stated that he would kill her and that she deserved to die. He also made boastful remarks claiming he had no shortage of money or women, reflecting the contempt with which he regarded her refusals. The situation escalated into direct physical violence when Zuhaib attacked the Hindu woman in Fraser Town in broad daylight, leaving her with injuries to her face and the back of her head. The victim filmed herself documenting her injuries and recounting the assault. The video spread rapidly on social media and drew widespread attention to the case. The Hindu woman approached Fraser Town police and filed a formal complaint. Police acted swiftly and arrested Zuhaib. He was under interrogation as the investigation progressed.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category for this case is "Predatory Proselytisation". The primary category for this case is "Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination". Religious brainwashing essentially means the often subtle and forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up their religious beliefs to accept contrasting regimented ideas. Religious grooming or brainwashing also involves propaganda and manipulation. It involves the systematic effort, driven by religious malice and indoctrination, to persuade “non-believers’ to accept allegiance, command, or doctrine to and of a contrasting faith. Cases of such grooming or brainwashing are far more nuanced than direct threats, coercion, inducement and violence. In such cases, it is often seen that there is repeated, subtle and continual manipulation of the victim to induce disaffection towards their own faith and acceptance of the contrasting faith of the perpetrator. While subtle indoctrination is widely acknowledged as predatory, an element which is often understated in such conversions or the attempts of such conversion is the role of loyalty and trust which might develop between the perpetrator and the victim. Fiduciary relationships are often abused to affect such religious conversion. For example, an educator transmitting religious doctrine of a competing faith to a Hindu student. The Hindu student is likely to accept what the teacher is transmitting owing to existence of the fiduciary relationship. The exploitation of the fiduciary relationship to religiously indoctrinate victims would also be included in this category. Since the underlying animosity towards the victim’s faith forms the basis of predatory proselytization, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. The second subcategory is- Harassment, threat, coercion for conversion. Harassment covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person, including threats and coercion. Harassment and threats, in this case, find their root on discriminatory grounds which has the effect of nullifying a person’s rights or infringing upon his freedom to exercise his right specifically owing to the victim’s religious identity. Verbal and physical threats and psychological or physical harassment are often used against Hindu victims because they choose to practice their professed religion. Religious harassment also includes forced and involuntary conversions by harassment, threats or coercion. Coercion includes intimidatory tactics like force-feeding a Hindu victim beef to convert to another religion, forceful circumcision etc. In several cases documented, non-Hindu perpetrators or those who harbour specific animosity towards Hinduism, harass victims simply based on their religious identity. Such cases often also include harassment to ensure the Hindu victim abandons his/her professed religion and adopts the religion of the perpetrator. Such cases where Hindu victims are harassed to convert to the perpetrator’s religion are rooted in animosity towards the victim’s religious identity and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. The other category selected is- Attack not resulting in death, and with this, the subcategory selected is- Attacked for refusal to convert. When there is pressure, threat or coercion employed upon the Hindu victim to convert to a different religion, in several cases, the victim refuses to succumb to the pressure/threats. Once the victim refuses, the perpetrator proceeds to attack/assault the victim owing to his/her refusal to convert. In such cases, the pressure/threat/intimidation/coercion/violence itself is driven by animosity towards the victim’s Hindu faith. The violence then is another hate crime driven by the victim’s refusal to abandon his professed faith, Hinduism, and convert to the religion of a non-Hindu perpetrator. Since the victim’s faith is at the heart of the pressure to convert and the ensuing violence towards the victim, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. The other category selected is- Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. Within this, the subcategory selected is- Assault or threat upon refusal to convert. When Hindu women are in a relationship with non-Hindu men, there are cases where the woman faces threats or assault after she refuses to convert and change her religious identity owing to pressure/force by the non-Hindu man. Such relationships may be consensual with the religious identity of the non-Hindu man known to the victim. Somewhere along the relationship, the non-Hindu man starts pressurizing the Hindu woman to convert to Islam and upon her refusal, assaults or threatens the victim. Such cases are driven by specific religious motivations and against the religious identity of the victim and are therefore qualified as hate crimes. Cases where the Hindu woman converts to Islam and does not file a complaint about the force or threat, are not considered a part of the hate tracker, even though, it may be argued that the woman was brainwashed or threatened to convert to Islam. The other sub-category is- Brainwashed and/or groomed. In our database, we have not added incidents where women have converted to another religion of their free will and no allegations of forced/involuntary conversion have been made. However, there are certain cases of conversion where the consent itself is a result of the brainwashing or grooming of a minor by the non-Hindu perpetrator trying to victimise a woman for her Hindu religious identity. The phenomenon of grooming points to non-Hindu perpetrators identifying their Hindu victims’ vulnerabilities and exploiting them over months and sometimes years, to extract the supposed ‘consent’ in order to convert their religion. In most cases of grooming, the victims are minors or the grooming started when the victim was a minor. In other cases of grooming, the non-Hindu perpetrator brainwashes and grooms a minor victim to extract their trust and then proceeds to rape them repeatedly with the intent of converting them to their faith. It is pertinent to understand here that when the victim is a minor, the ‘consent’ to convert or enter into a romantic relationship with an adult itself is redundant – addressed by POCSO. While every case of conversion of a minor and incidents of establishing a physical relationship with a minor by an adult is a crime, for the purpose of this database, a case would be considered a hate crime only if there is a distinct religious angle to the grooming. For example, in the UK, if a Hindu minor is targeted by Pakistani grooming gangs, it would be considered a hate crime because the victims are specifically targeted owing to their non-Muslim religious identity with the perpetrators being Muslim. In other cases, if a Hindu minor is brainwashed into entering a physical relationship with the non-Hindu adult perpetrator and the family alleges grooming/brainwashing of the minor to convert her religion, it would form a part of this database. If the victim is a Hindu adult, the case would form a part of this database only if the victim herself says that she was brainwashed/groomed to convert her religion. However, if the victim is deceased (murdered or otherwise), the case would form a part of this database if her family/friends provided testimony that the victim was brainwashed/groomed to convert her religion. Since these crimes have a distinct religious angle where the victim is being targeted owing to her Hindu religious identity, these cases are considered a hate crime. 4 This case qualifies as a religiously motivated hate crime because the Hindu woman was deliberately targeted, groomed, and subjected to sustained coercion and violence by Zuhaib, who exploited her vulnerability with the apparent aim of forcing her into marriage and overriding her identity. The first marker is the deliberate creation of proximity and dependency. Zuhaib came into contact with the Hindu woman through professional circles in the modelling industry and gradually developed a personal connection. This is significant because such proximity was not incidental. He was aware of her professional circumstances and the importance of networking and opportunities in her field. By drawing close to her in this context, he placed himself in a position of influence and access, which could be leveraged to exert pressure later. This reflects a pattern where initial trust is built to create a sense of dependency before coercion begins. The second marker is the exploitation of vulnerability to impose coercive demands. Once this proximity was established, Zuhaib began persistently pressuring the Hindu woman to marry him from 2024 onwards. Despite her repeated refusals, he continued to escalate his demands. This is important because the pressure did not arise in isolation but followed a period in which he had positioned himself within her personal and professional space. The use of emotional and situational leverage to push for marriage indicates that her vulnerability was being consciously exploited to override her consent. The third marker is the use of threats to break resistance. Zuhaib sent explicit messages stating that he would kill her and that she deserved to die if she did not comply. These threats were directly linked to her refusal, showing that her resistance was met with intimidation rather than respect. This demonstrates a clear attempt to force compliance through fear, turning what began as coercion into outright criminal intimidation. The fourth marker is the escalation to physical violence when coercion failed. The attack in Fraser Town was the culmination of sustained pressure and threats. Zuhaib assaulted the Hindu woman in broad daylight, causing serious injuries to her face and head. This progression from grooming to coercion, then to threats, and finally to violence shows a clear and deliberate pattern of behaviour aimed at overpowering her will when she refused to submit. The fifth marker is the targeting of a Hindu woman within a broader pattern of similar incidents. Cases involving grooming, coercion, and violence against Hindu women after refusal have been documented across Karnataka. This case reflects the same trajectory, where initial trust is built, vulnerability is exploited, and resistance is met with escalation. Taken together, these elements show that the incident was not a spontaneous act but a calculated sequence of actions. Zuhaib first established proximity, then attempted to create influence over the victim, followed by sustained coercion, threats, and eventual violence when she resisted. The intent behind such actions becomes evident from this pattern. The deliberate targeting, the exploitation of vulnerability, and the escalation upon refusal indicate a mindset in which the victim’s identity and autonomy were treated as obstacles to be overcome rather than respected. The progression from manipulation to violence reflects a clear disregard for her agency and a willingness to use force to impose compliance. Such acts are carried out by Muslim perpetrators due to indoctrination by the Islamic theology, which advocates that all non-Muslims (referred to as kafirs) are inferior and subject to subjugation unless they convert to Islam or live under Islamic rule (dhimmitude). These ideas are not mere abstractions; they manifest in actions where non-Muslims, especially Hindus in India, are seen as targets for religious domination, coercion, or humiliation. This theological framework fosters an "us versus them" mindset, in which any assertion of Hindu identity or religious freedom is seen not only as undesirable but as a threat to Islamic supremacy. As a result, perpetrators who are shaped by such teachings feel justified, even morally obligated, to harass, suppress, or violently attack Hindus, particularly when Hindus assert their religious rights or resist conversion. Such acts, therefore, are not isolated but driven by a broader ideological hostility towards Hindus as non-believers and reflect an attempt to impose religious dominance. For these reasons, the case has been included in the tracker as a religiously motivated hate crime, as it involves targeted grooming, coercion, threats, and violence directed at a Hindu woman following her refusal, forming part of a broader pattern of such incidents.
Victim Details
Total Victim
1
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 0
- Female 1
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 1
Age Group
- Minor 0
- Adult 0
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 1
Case Status
Arrested
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
