Minor Hindu girl groomed, sexually assaulted under pretext of marriage, and pressured for conversion by Muslim man in Ballia, Uttar Pradesh
Ballia, Uttar Pradesh, India 
3 July, 2026
Case Summary
A minor Hindu Dalit girl who was working as a domestic help was subjected to sexual assault, brainwashing and grooming under the pretence of a marriage promise and was subsequently pressured to change her religion. The Muslim perpetrator was identified as Jalaluddin. The woman was 17 at the time the assault began and continued till she turned 22 years of age. The victim, who was an orphan, was brought to the house for domestic work several years ago due to her impoverished circumstances. The accused took advantage of her situation, initially molesting her and eventually forcing her into a physical relationship that began in 2017. When she threatened to expose his actions, the accused entered into a written agreement of marriage with her on 10 August 2021, when she was 17 years old. He promised to legalise the marriage and grant her a share of his property once she turned 20. The situation escalated when the woman later pressured him to marry her formally. She was coerced to convert her religion, and upon her refusal, she received threats to her life. After years of assault and enduring mental and physical scrutiny, the victim gathered the courage to narrate her story to the local police and lodged an official complaint against Jalauddin(24 years) on July 4th, 2026. At the time of documenting this incident, the victim had stated that the accused was preparing to marry someone else. Local police officials confirmed that they were conducting a detailed investigation and that legal procedures were underway to record the victim's formal statement before a local court in Ballia. The police had also confirmed that the accused was being investigated under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The incident has been added under the category: Predatory Proselytisation. Under this, the subcategory selected is- Harassment, threats, 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 second subcategory selected is: Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. The tertiary category within is- Rape and sexual assault/harassment. 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. This incident has been categorised as a hate crime due to multiple religious markers that demonstrate the victim's Hindu identity was central to the abuse she endured. The first religious marker is the sustained grooming and exploitation of a vulnerable Hindu girl. The victim was an orphan from a Dalit Hindu family who had been working as a domestic help due to her impoverished circumstances. According to the complaint, the accused exploited this position of vulnerability by first sexually assaulting her and later manipulating her through repeated promises of marriage. Rather than respecting the victim's autonomy, he allegedly used her social and economic disadvantage to establish control over her. The exploitation became progressively more coercive, ultimately placing the victim in a position where she was emotionally, socially, and psychologically dependent upon the accused. The second and most significant religious marker is the pressure exerted on the victim to abandon her Hindu faith and convert her religion. According to the complaint, when the victim insisted that the accused fulfil his promise of marriage, he instead began pressuring her to change her religion. The demand for conversion demonstrates that the accused's objective extended beyond maintaining a relationship. He sought to alter the victim's religious identity as a condition for the continuation or legitimisation of the relationship. This makes her Hindu identity central to the offence rather than incidental to it. The conversion pressure was not accompanied by free choice or informed consent. According to the victim, when she refused to abandon her faith, she was threatened with dire consequences, including threats to her life. Such threats are significant because they transformed what could otherwise be portrayed as a personal relationship into one characterised by religious coercion. The victim's refusal to convert became the basis for intimidation, demonstrating that her continued adherence to Hinduism was unacceptable to the accused. The use of threats to compel a Hindu woman to renounce her religion constitutes a direct attack on her religious freedom and personal autonomy. The sequence of events also demonstrates a continuing pattern of manipulation. According to the complaint, the accused initially sexually exploited the victim, then executed a written marriage agreement to prevent her from exposing the abuse, assuring her that he would legally marry her and provide her with a share in his property. However, when the victim later sought fulfilment of those promises, the accused allegedly responded not by honouring his commitment but by insisting that she convert her religion while simultaneously preparing to marry another woman. This progression indicates that the promise of marriage functioned as a means of maintaining control over the victim rather than a genuine intention to establish a lawful marital relationship. It is also relevant that the victim was a minor when she was targeted, which means there was an absence of both consent and a genuine change of conscience. It is a well-established fact that children are more susceptible to manipulation since they are still developing emotionally, cognitively, and socially. Their brains are not fully mature, making them more vulnerable to influence and less capable of critically evaluating information. Moreover, subtle manipulation tactics can be difficult to detect, making it challenging for parents to identify and address instances of religious manipulation. Moreover, being an orphan and economically disadvantaged made her more susceptible to manipulation and reduced her ability to resist prolonged abuse. According to the complaint, the accused exploited this vulnerability over several years before introducing the demand for religious conversion. The prolonged nature of the exploitation demonstrates that the coercion was neither isolated nor impulsive but formed part of a sustained course of conduct directed against a Hindu woman. Consequently, such cases involving religious manipulation not only represent an infringement on an individual's religious freedom but also demonstrate a calculated strategy of targeting those who are less able to resist or understand the long-term implications of conversion, making it a significant case of religiously motivated hate crime.
Victim Details
Total Victim
1
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 0
- Female 1
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 1
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 0
Age Group
- Minor 1
- Adult 0
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
