Tribal Hindu family faced conversion pressure, inducements, threats, and derogatory remarks against Hinduism by Christian missionaries
Dindori, Madhya Pradesh, India 
26 April, 2024
Case Summary
In the Pipariya village under the Samanpur police station area of Dindori district, Madhya Pradesh, a tribal Hindu family was targeted and harassed for religious conversion by Christian missionaries. The perpetrators also offered inducements and made derogatory remarks about Hinduism and Hindu deities in an effort to convert the family. The incident came to light after a complaint lodged on 27 April 2024 by Angad Singh Maravi, who stated that the accused had repeatedly visited the residence of his relative, Suday Maravi, and pressured him to embrace Christianity. During one such visit, the accused offered assurances of financial prosperity, relief from poverty, and freedom from personal hardships if he converted. When the Hindu family resisted, the accused disparaged Hindu beliefs and deities, promoted Christianity as superior, and threatened to harass them for refusing conversion. The incident was witnessed by several villagers, including local community representatives who arrived at the scene after overhearing the conversation. Following the complaint, police registered a case under Sections 153-A and 295-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021. During the trial, eyewitnesses testified that the accused had encouraged religious conversion through inducements, insulted Hindu religious beliefs, and desecrated places of worship associated with Hindu deities. The prosecution also produced religious literature, documents, and witness statements as evidence. After examining the material on record, the court concluded that the accused had acted with a common intention to spread enmity on religious grounds, outrage religious sentiments, and facilitate religious conversion through promises of material benefits. On 14 June 2026, the Court of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori, found Santosh Parste, Sanjay Markam, Amit Kumar, Pramod, Karan Singh Maravi, Chhot Singh Dhurve and Jeet Singh guilty of the offences charged. All seven were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, while most of them received five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh each under the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021. The court held that the prosecution had established the offences beyond reasonable doubt and that the conduct of the accused had sought to undermine religious harmony by targeting Hindus for conversion through inducements and derogatory remarks against their faith.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Predatory Proselytisation. Within it, the sub-category selected is - Conversion/ attempts to convert by inducement. Predatory Proselytisation is not just limited to threat, harassment, force and violence, but it also has contours of stealth. In several cases, the Hindu victim is exploited to convert, with non-Hindus taking advantage of their poverty. In such cases, the Hindu victim who is suffering financially is offered monetary benefits, including lucrative offers for jobs, health treatment, education, etc, to induce the victim into changing his/her religion. In such cases, the religious identity of the victim and the aim to disenfranchise him from his faith form the heart of the crime. Also, taking advantage of and exploiting an individual’s economic vulnerabilities is widely acknowledged as exploitation, forms of which are often penalised by law. Such cases therefore are considered religiously motivated hate crimes since the victim’s religious identity forms the very heart of the crime itself. The other sub-category selected is - Attempting to convert/converting by denigrating Hinduism. In several cases, Hindus are converted or an attempt is made to convert Hindus by denigrating their faith, Hinduism. In such cases, the Hindus associate with the non-Hindu perpetrators often by choice and then, the attempt to convert them by insulting their faith, showing the faith down etc begins. An example of this would be a non-Hindu gathering where the Hindus are attending the gathering of their own free will. However, once they attend the gathering, there is an explicit attempt to convert them by abusing their faith and hailing the faith of the perpetrator. The denigration of the Hindu faith is often based on misrepresentation of the Hindu faith, its doctrine and scriptures and insult to espoused traditions if not blatant lies about Hindu beliefs and ways. Such conversions or attempts at conversions are driven by animosity towards the Hindu faith and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. This case has been added to the tracker because a tribal Hindu family was targeted for religious conversion by a group of Christian men who offered inducements, pressured the family to abandon their faith, and made derogatory remarks about Hinduism and Hindu deities. The court ultimately found the accused guilty of attempting to convert the victims through inducements and of hurting religious sentiments, demonstrating that the actions were not merely expressions of personal belief but formed part of a deliberate effort to influence the religious identity of the Hindu victims. Firstly, the accused attempted to persuade the victims to convert by promising financial benefits, relief from poverty, and freedom from personal hardships. Offering incentives or making false promises, especially when directed at vulnerable individuals in need, shows that these incentives are not acts of kindness or charity. Instead, they are calculated moves to exploit vulnerable Hindus because of religion. By providing inducements in exchange for conversion, the accused were effectively blackmailing those who might have been desperate for assistance or hope. Such instances are seen in many cases where members of Christian missionary groups target socially and economically vulnerable Hindus to further their agenda of religious conversions. This form of coercion strips people of their agency and dignity and results in coerced conversions. These are not random or isolated incidents, but rather cases deeply rooted in religious animosity towards Hindu victims. Secondly, the accused made derogatory remarks about Hinduism and Hindu deities while promoting Christianity and encouraging conversion. This goes beyond religious debate or proselytisation; it constitutes an act of incitement and insult directed at the core beliefs of the Hindu community. Such remarks are designed to demean and undermine the faith of Hindus and intend to create an inferiority complex in the minds of the victims against their own faith. This fosters an environment of hostility and disrespect towards the Hindu community and Hindu deities. These acts of insulting Hinduism stem from Christian theology, which harbours disdain and hatred for polytheistic faiths, and which categorises Hindus as ‘polytheists’, thereby fostering hatred against them. Such actions make the religiously motivated nature of the crime even more evident. Thirdly, when the victims refused to convert, the accused threatened to harass them. This aspect is significant because it demonstrates that the interaction was not limited to persuasion or religious outreach. The willingness to resort to threats after the victims declined the conversion proposal demonstrates an attempt to pressure them into abandoning their faith against their wishes. Such conduct undermines the principle of free and informed religious choice, as a decision made under fear of harassment cannot be considered genuinely voluntary. The fact that the threats arose specifically in response to the victims' refusal to convert further highlights that their Hindu identity was central to the targeting. Rather than respecting the family's decision to remain Hindu, the accused sought to create adverse consequences for refusing conversion, thereby escalating the coercive nature of the incident and reinforcing its religiously motivated character. The Christian faith, by its very theological foundations, places a strong emphasis on proselytisation. In pursuit of conversion objectives, Christian evangelists often employ unethical means, ranging from psychological pressure and misinformation to inducements such as money or jobs. These tactics are designed not as acts of charity but as tools to engineer religious change under the guise of social upliftment, particularly among vulnerable and underprivileged communities. This systematic attempt to erode the religious foundation of individuals and replace it with allegiance to another faith reflects deep religious malice and animus against the Hindu identity. Because the core motivation of the act stems from hostility toward the victim’s religion, it meets the threshold of a hate crime. Hence, categorised as a hate crime in the database.
Case Status
Perpetrator held guilty by court
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Christian Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 5 to 10
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
