Minor Hindu girl forcibly converted to Islam and raped by Muslim man; court convicts accused after 15 years
Thane, Maharashtra, India 
8 September, 2026
Case Summary
In Kalyan, Thane district, a Hindu minor girl was converted to Islam and raped by a Muslim man, Azhar alias Badu Mustaq Qureshi, in a case dating back to 2011. The girl was 15 years old at the time, and the court later held that her participation in the conversion rites could not be regarded as voluntary because she was a minor. In 2011, the girl, a resident of Dombivli in Maharashtra's Thane district, accompanied 39-year-old Qureshi to Lucknow. After taking the girl to Lucknow, Qureshi converted her to Islam while she was still a minor. During the journey, he had purchased a railway ticket under a different name, which the court later considered evidence of his pre-planned ill intention. The prosecution said the evidence showed that Qureshi had planned to have a physical relationship with the minor. It examined seven witnesses, including the girl, to establish the case. Additional Public Prosecutor Sachin Kulkarni handled the prosecution. Qureshi was in pre-trial custody from February 5, 2012, to September 12, 2012, a period that was later counted towards his sentence. The case was heard by a Special Fast-Track Court in Kalyan, where Additional Sessions Judge P. P. Muley found Qureshi guilty of rape and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The judge referred to a Supreme Court ruling on sexual relations with girls below 18 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that sex with a girl below 18 amounted to rape even if she was the man's wife and was between 15 and 18 years old. Qureshi could not use Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which at the time excluded sexual intercourse by a husband with his wife from the definition of rape if she was not under 15. He was, however, acquitted of kidnapping because the girl had travelled to Lucknow voluntarily. The court also held that her participation in the conversion rites could not be considered voluntary because she was a minor, and that the ticket bought under a different name pointed to his pre-planned ill intention. The court gave him credit for his earlier period in custody and sent the matter to the District Legal Services Authority for consideration of compensation for the victim. The case had originated in 2011, and the conviction and sentencing came approximately 15 years after the offence.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category selected in this case is: Predatory Proselytisation. The subcategory selected is: Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. The tertiary categories selected are: Rape and sexual assault/harassment and Conversion of minor. 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 in attempts at 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 the 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 proselytisation, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. The other primary category selected is: Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. The subcategory selected is: Brainwashed and/or groomed. The tertiary categories selected are: Rape and sexual assault/harassment and Conversion of minor. 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’ 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 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. This case was classified as a religiously motivated hate crime because a minor Hindu girl was subjected to sexual exploitation and religious conversion by a Muslim man. Her participation in the conversion rites could not be considered voluntary because she was a minor, while the subsequent sexual relationship constituted rape. The conversion of the minor's religious identity was therefore a significant element of the offence, warranting the inclusion of this case in the Hinduphobia Tracker. The conversion had directly undermined the Hindu religious identity of a minor by replacing her Hindu faith with Islam while she was still incapable of providing informed and independent consent. It had resulted in the loss of her existing Hindu religious identity and its substitution with a different faith during a period when she remained particularly vulnerable to external influence. The religious dimension had therefore extended beyond the underlying sexual exploitation. The conduct had specifically involved changing the girl's religious affiliation from Hinduism to Islam, making her Hindu identity itself a target of the exploitation. The forced displacement of a Hindu identity in favour of another religion had constituted the central anti-Hindu religious marker in the case. It is further important to note here that the victim was a minor, which means the element of consent and genuine change of conscience was missing ab initio. Minors, due to their young age and lack of maturity, are particularly vulnerable to manipulation and coercion. They may not have the ability to fully understand the implications of converting to another religion, and the Muslim perpetrator purposely targeted and exploited this vulnerability of the victim. Since this case exemplifies the use of coercion and manipulation to achieve religious conversion, it is a blatant act of religious hate, which is why it has been documented here in the hate tracker. Disclaimer: It is important to clarify that none of the media sources covering this case has specified the exact date in 2011 when the victim's ordeal began or when she was taken to Lucknow and converted to Islam. The reports only establish that the incident took place in 2011 and that she was 15 years old at the time. Thus, to document this case, we have used an indicative date, 8 September 2011, as a placeholder to represent the beginning of her ordeal since media coverage of the case emerged on 8 September 2026. The Hinduphobia Tracker records the incident based on when the victim's ordeal began, rather than when it was reported.
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 1
- Adult 0
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Perpetrator held guilty by court
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
