Hindu man killed in truck attack after opposing encroachment on Shiva temple site at Maharaja Kansa Pasi fort in Lucknow

Case ID : 30aa9cf | Location : Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Wed, 27 May, 2026

Case ID : 30aa9cf

Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

27 May, 2026

Hindu man killed in truck attack after opposing encroachment on Shiva temple site at Maharaja Kansa Pasi fort in Lucknow

Attack resulting in death

Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim

Attack on Hindu religious representations

Encroachment or illicit takeover of temple land/land near temple

Case Summary

In Kasmandi Kalan, Malihabad, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, on 28th September 2026, Hindu villager Shyamlal was killed by a Muslim man. Farzan drove a high-speed loader bearing registration number UP 32 QN 6134 into him and four other family members. Shyamlal’s family connected the attack to his opposition to what the local Hindu Pasi community (belonging to the SC/ST community) describes as an attempted takeover of the historic Maharaja Kansa Pasi fort and the Shiva temple situated within the disputed site. Five other people, including children, were injured in the vehicle attack. The religious-site dispute has continued in Kasmandi Kalan for months. The Pasi community maintains that the site is the historic fort of Maharaja Kansa Pasi and contains an ancient Shiva temple, while the Muslim side maintains that the structure is a mosque or religious burial site. Hindu representatives have also objected to what they describe as encroachment through the construction of graves and other changes within the fort premises. The dispute previously led to protests and heightened security, with the administration restricting religious activity at the site. Shyamlal had supported the Hindu community’s position regarding the site and had opposed the Muslim side’s claim over it. His family stated that this opposition had generated enmity between Shyamlal and Farzan and individuals associated with him, and they connected the subsequent vehicle attack to that continuing dispute. On the night of the attack, Shyamlal and members of his family were sitting on a cot near a house in Kumharan Tola when a confrontation took place with Farzan. According to the family, Farzan left after issuing threats and returned shortly afterwards, driving a loader at high speed. He then drove the vehicle into the people sitting there, critically injuring Shyamlal and striking several others. Shyamlal was taken for medical treatment but later died from his injuries. Police registered a case against Farzan Ahmed, Aqeel Ahmed and Dr Shakil under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 351(3) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Shyamlal’s son told police that his father had been deliberately run over because of the existing enmity; he also stated that Aqeel had previously threatened the family and accused Shakil of involvement in the conspiracy. Farzan was subsequently taken into police custody, and the vehicle used in the attack was seized. The case therefore centres on the family’s contention that Shyamlal was deliberately killed after resisting the Muslim side’s claim over a disputed site that the Hindu Pasi community identifies as Maharaja Kansa Pasi’s fort and an ancient Shiva temple, while police continue to investigate the precise motive and the involvement of the other named accused.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category selected for this case is: Attack resulting in death. The subcategory selected is: Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save the victim. In several cases, Hindus are attacked for opposing religiously motivated crimes being committed against a fellow Hindu or simply for voicing an opinion opposing radical elements, who either have in the past or continue to persecute Hindus. In such cases, the initial attack against the victim, against which the Hindu was trying to defend the victim, would also need to be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. Since the initial crime itself was religiously motivated and the subsequent crime of attempting to save the victim or speaking against the radical elements ends up inviting a violent attack, it would also be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. Under this category, cases where the attack led to the death of the Hindu victim/s would be documented. The other primary category selected for this case is: Attack on Hindu religious representations. The subcategory for this case is: Encroachment or illicit takeover of temple land/land near temple. In Hinduism, a temple is the abode of the Deity. The Deity in the Temple is consecrated, thereby making it a real, breathing entity. Hindus believe that not just the Deity but the temple premises itself are sacred to Hindus since Hindus hold the faith that the entire Temple space is an amalgamation of the divine energy of the deity. Not only the Temple but the Temple premises in their entirety are considered sacred by Hindus. In several cases, the premises of the Temple and/or religious centre are illicitly taken over by institutions belonging to other faiths – like the Waqf board or the Church. Other times, the temple property, land or the property of religious centres are illicitly encroached upon by non-Hindu groups. Any illicit takeover or encroachment is a crime ab initio; however, when non-Hindu groups illicitly take over or encroach on the sacred land of Hindus, it is an affront to the Hindu community and is therefore classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. The religious dimension of this case lay in the fact that the victim’s resistance was tied to the defence of a site regarded by the local Hindu Pasi community as sacred and historically significant. His opposition was not merely to a private land dispute, but to what the Hindu community viewed as an attempt to displace its claim over a site associated with a Shiva temple and Maharaja Kansa Pasi’s fort. This made the victim’s Hindu identity and his role in defending Hindu religious interests directly relevant to the hostility directed against him. The site itself carried layered significance for the Pasi community. It was linked in local Hindu memory with Maharaja Kansa Pasi, whose historical legacy held importance for Pasi identity and pride, while the asserted presence of a Shiva temple gave the location direct religious significance. For the community, the fort therefore represented both historical continuity and sacred Hindu heritage. In Hinduism, a temple and its associated sacred premises are regarded as religiously significant spaces, and interference with such land can affect worship, access and preservation of religious heritage. The violence also carried a retaliatory character. The victim was targeted after opposing conduct that the Hindu side viewed as encroachment upon a sacred Hindu site. The attack therefore functioned as punishment for resistance and also created the potential to intimidate other Hindus from defending the same religious claim. Such retaliation could weaken the community’s ability to protect temple land, preserve access to the sacred site and assert its religious rights without fear of violence. The fatal outcome made the attack especially grave. The victim’s death transformed the dispute from one concerning control over a religiously significant site into a lethal act against someone who had stood in defence of that site. The combination of the Shiva-temple claim, the Pasi community’s historical connection with the fort and the violent retaliation against resistance established the core religious nexus behind the case.