Minor Hindu girl deceived through religious deception by a Muslim man, sexually exploited, force fed meat, pressured for conversion and nikah
Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India 
16 September, 2019
Case Summary
In Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, a minor Hindu girl was deceived by a Muslim youth who concealed his religious identity and posed as a Hindu. Over four years, he sexually exploited her, attempted to force her into religious conversion and nikah, force-fed her prohibited meat, and threatened to kill her. According to reports, the muslim youth initiated contact with the Hindu girl by introducing himself under a false Hindu identity. Using this deception, he befriended the minor girl, drew her into a relationship, and subjected her to continuous sexual exploitation over a four-year period. On 4 September, 2026, the accused transported the girl to a farmhouse located in Kaluwala Paharipur, also known as Jahanpur, under the guise of assisting her with a government job application. Upon arrival, he exerted intense pressure on her to undergo religious conversion and attempted to execute a forced Islamic marriage (nikah). During the confrontation, the perpetrator forcibly fed her the meat of a prohibited animal. When the minor girl resisted the conversion and the defilement of her dietary customs, he physically assaulted her and issued explicit death threats. Following the assault, the perpetrator's family members subjected the victim to verbal abuse and intimidated her against approaching the authorities. Despite the threats, the girl submitted a formal police complaint. A delegation from the Hindu Raksha Dal, including women's district president Amandeep Kaur Sidhu, subsequently arrived at the Saharanpur Police Lines to demand strict action against the accused. Addressing the incident, Behat Circle Officer Priya Yadav noted that the girl had previously visited the youth's home voluntarily and had an earlier recorded dispute with her own family members. Law enforcement authorities confirmed an active investigation into the current complaint against the accused and his family
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The first primary category selected here is: Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. Within it, the sub-category selected is - Man pretends to be Hindu. The tertiary category selected is Name Changed. When a non-Hindu man pretends to be a Hindu to deceive a Hindu woman into a relationship, the act is seen as triggered by malafide intentions. In some cases, the woman eventually accepts the man’s original religious identity and converts after the man’s identity is revealed. These cases could be argued as cases of religious brainwashing and a result of the pressure a woman feels after getting into a relationship with a man. The woman, it can be argued, also changed her religious identity because of the stigma she believes she might face if she chooses to walk out of a deceptive relationship. However, for the purpose of documenting hate crimes, the cases in this subcategory are limited to those where there is explicit violence aimed at religious conversion against the wishes of the victim (force-feeding beef, blackmailing with intimate videos, rape on refusal to convert, etc), or if the woman herself complains of the man’s religious deception. In such cases, it is established that the deception of the non-Hindu man had a specific aim of religious conversion or targeting of the victim due to her Hindu religious identity, therefore, making it a religiously motivated hate crime. The second relevant sub-category is Brainwashed and/or groomed. The tertiary category selected is 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’ 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. The third sub-category relevant here is: Forced conversion before marriage. The tertiary category selected is: Forced to do Nikah. In such cases, a non-Hindu man is in a relationship with a Hindu woman when the pressure to convert her religion begins to manifest. In such cases, typically, two patterns emerge. First, when the relationship is consensual, and the religious identity of the perpetrator is known to the Hindu woman in the relationship, however, at some point during the relationship, the non-Hindu man starts to force the victim to convert her religion and give up her Hindu religious identity. The second is when the woman gets into a marriage with the man pretending to share her faith. Later, when the truth is revealed, the man starts pressuring the woman to convert her religion and give up her religious identity. In both the situations, the methods used to force the victim to convert her religion often revolve around force-feeding beef, forcing her to wear hijab, forcing her to read the Kalma or even pressurizing the victim to do ‘Nikah’, which is marriage under Islamic law, with a prerequisite being conversion to Islam. Cases where a Hindu woman consensually converts to Islam in a relationship will be left out of the hate crime database, even though it could be argued in several cases that the conversion was a result of religious brainwashing. The fourth sub-category relevant here 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 selected category is: Predatory Proselytisation. The other sub-category relevant here is Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. The tertiary category selected is: 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, repeated, subtle, and continual manipulation often induces disaffection toward the victim's own faith and acceptance of the perpetrator's contrasting faith. 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 sub-category selected is harassment, threats, and 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. Here, the perpetrator weaponised the victim's Hindu identity by adopting a fake Hindu name to deceive and entrap her. This calculated concealment of his actual religious background demonstrated a clear, malafide intent to bypass the social and religious boundaries of the Hindu minor. By projecting a shared faith, he manipulated her trust, proving that her specific religious identity was the primary vulnerability he sought to exploit to initiate the relationship. The subsequent four-year period of continuous sexual exploitation constituted targeted religious grooming of a minor. Because the victim was drawn into the dynamic through identity fraud, the perpetrator exploited her vulnerability over a prolonged period under false pretences. He used the prolonged exploitation as a mechanism to break down her psychological defences, extracting her reliance and trust before initiating his ultimate objective of forced religious conversion. The incident escalated into overt predatory proselytisation when the perpetrator transported the victim to a secluded farmhouse to force her to abandon Hinduism. He did not merely seek a relationship; he used the established dynamic to exert intense psychological and physical pressure on her to accept his contrasting faith. This systematic effort to induce disaffection towards her own religion and force her allegiance to another highlighted the deep-seated animosity driving the exploitation. The attempt to execute a forced Islamic marriage, or nikah, served as a structural tool to permanently erase the victim's Hindu identity. In this context, the nikah was not a consensual union but a prerequisite mechanism designed to formally bind the minor to the perpetrator's religion against her will. The imposition of this religious marital contract exposed the motive to permanently absorb a Hindu woman into a competing faith through coercion. The act of force-feeding the victim prohibited meat was a deliberate tactic of religious defilement. Dietary customs hold profound spiritual significance in Hinduism, and violating them through forced consumption is a recognised method of coercing conversion by destroying the victim's sense of religious purity. This specific form of psychological and physical harassment was intended to humiliate the victim, sever her ties to her Hindu roots, and force her submission to the perpetrator's religious practices. When the victim actively resisted the conversion and the dietary defilement, she faced immediate physical violence. This assault was directly triggered by her refusal to surrender her Hindu faith. The violence was not a result of a standard interpersonal dispute but was strictly conditional upon her determination to retain her religious identity, directly linking the physical harm to her status as a practising Hindu. Finally, the explicit death threats from the perpetrator and the subsequent intimidation by his family further cemented the religiously motivated hostility. The threats were designed to suppress her resistance, punish her for rejecting the conversion, and ensure her silence. The collective effort to terrorise a Hindu minor because she refused to abandon her faith demonstrated a systemic animus against her religious identity. Crucially, because the victim was a minor throughout the four-year period of exploitation, any element of legal consent or a genuine change of conscience regarding her faith was absent from the beginning. Owing to her young age, she lacked the maturity to fully comprehend the permanent implications of religious conversion, making her profoundly vulnerable to psychological manipulation and coercion. The perpetrator purposely targeted and exploited this inherent developmental vulnerability. By using deception and sustained abuse to override the minor's capacity for independent judgement, he bypassed any requirement for genuine consent and executed a calculated, predatory campaign to erase her Hindu identity, cementing the exploitation as a blatant act of religiously motivated hate. Disclaimer: The exact date when the Hindu girl and the Muslim youth first came into contact was not specified in the available sources. However, the available account indicates that the accused had been in contact with, or came into touch with, the minor girl 7 years ago. The tracker records incident dates based on when the ordeal began, not when it was reported. In this case, 17th September 2019 has been used as the indicative incident date for documentation purposes only. This has been derived by aligning the reporting date and month with the year (2019) when the victim came into contact with the accused.
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
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
