Hindu woman deceived into marriage, assaulted and pressured to convert by Muslim man posing as Hindu; her minor children also pressured to convert
Sonipat, Haryana, India 
28 June, 2023
Case Summary
In Sonipat, Haryana, a Hindu woman was deceived into marriage and pressured to convert to Islam by a Muslim man, who concealed his religious identity and presented himself as a Hindu. He married her as per Hindu customs and even pressured her three minor children to convert to Islam. According to reports, the victim had separated from her first husband, Amit, in 2022 following a panchayat-level decision. She had three children from that marriage. Her first husband had reportedly absconded with money belonging to others and later gone to jail. After the separation, she moved to Sonipat with her three children, aged 11, 6 and 3 at that time, and rented a house in Sector 15 in 2022, where she became acquainted with two young women, Kalpana and Ruby, who lived on the ground floor. She confided in Ruby about her marital difficulties, following which Ruby introduced her to the accused. During this time, the accused introduced himself as a Hindu man named Johnny and presented himself as a bachelor The woman stated that she began communicating with Johnny through an Instagram account named “Jaish”. The two first met on 29 June 2023 at the car garage of Johnny’s brother on Kami Road. During their first meeting, Johnny offered to marry her and give his name to her three children. Although she initially hesitated, he remained in constant contact with her and, after about a month, she agreed to the marriage. Subsequently, the couple married in a Hindu temple on 29 July 2023 according to Hindu customs, with Johnny’s sister and two of his friends present. After the wedding, they moved into a rented house, where the victim lived with her three children, her mother and Johnny. Around six months after the marriage, the accused's first wife and her mother came to the house while he was away. The victim then learnt that the accused was, in reality, a Muslim and that he was already married and had three children with his first wife. She further stated that, during the dispute, the accused's first wife told her that he had married her with the intention of converting her from Hinduism to Islam. When the victim confronted Johnny about concealing his religious identity and previous marriage, he told her that had he disclosed at the outset that he was Muslim, she would not have married him. The victim also stated that Johnny had concealed his identity from the landlord as well. While renting their house, he gave the landlord the name “Amit” and used a fake identity document. After the landlord learnt his real identity, they were asked to vacate the rented accommodation. The victim further stated that Johnny remained in regular contact with his first wife. When she was approximately five months pregnant, Johnny summoned his first wife from Budhana in Muzaffarnagar district, Uttar Pradesh, which resulted in another dispute between the two women. The victim was also assaulted during the incident. She subsequently gave birth to a son from Johnny on 2 July 2026, but the disputes and tension between them continued. She subsequently faced continued physical abuse and was pressured to convert to Islam. Furthermore, the accused also pressured her three minor children to convert to Islam. The victim further stated that Johnny’s two elder brothers harassed her when she was alone at home and pressured her to have physical relations with them. She stated that they told her such relations were acceptable in their religion and beat her when she resisted. When she confronted Johnny about the conduct of his brothers, he also assaulted her. Subsequently, the victim approached the Sector 27 police station in Sonipat and filed a complaint concerning fraudulent concealment of identity and marriage, assault, harassment, pressure to convert, and the conduct of her brothers-in-law. Sector 27 police station in-charge Savit Kumar stated that the police had received the complaint, that both parties had been called for questioning, and that further action would be taken after their statements were recorded and the facts were established. Following the complaint, a Rakshak Sena team comprising its chief Manjeet Tihara, women’s coordinator Shivani Mahalana and other officials met the woman and her family. The organisation assured the family of support and demanded prompt legal action from the Sonipat police. During the meeting, the victim reiterated that Johnny and his family had pressured her to convert to Islam and subjected her to mental and physical abuse.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. Within it, the sub-category selected here is - Man pretends to be Hindu, with the tertiary category being: Name changed and Marries as per Hindu rituals. 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 other sub-category selected here is - Forced conversion after marriage. In such cases, a non-Hindu man marries a Hindu woman, and the force/pressure to convert to any Abrahamic faith, like Islam, begins after marriage. 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. The marriage could be under the Special Marriages Act, where neither parties are required to convert their religion for the marriage to be considered legitimate. While the victim in such cases enters matrimony assuming that religious identity is not a barrier, the non-Hindu man starts to pressure the woman to convert her religion after marriage. 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 situations, there is application of force by the perpetrator, including the denial of the woman’s religious rights. Some of the means by which the woman is forced/pressured to convert include force-feeding beef, being forced to read the Kalma, being forced to wear a hijab, forced to undergo Halala, etc. There are several instances where, after marriage, the woman voluntarily converts to Islam. Such cases are often argued to be a result of religious brainwashing, however, for the purpose of documenting religiously motivated hate crimes, in the absence of the victim complaining of forced conversion, such cases do not form a part of the database. The other primary category selected here is: Predatory Proselytisation. Within it, the sub-category selected here is - Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination, with tertiary category being - 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 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 other sub-category selected here 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 case qualified as a religiously motivated hate crime because the conduct was directed at the victim's Hindu religious identity and involved the use of deception, religious concealment and pressure to alter her and her children's religious affiliation. This case exhibits multiple religious markers that clearly establish it as a religiously motivated crime specifically targeting a Hindu victim. The accused, a Muslim man, deliberately concealed his religious identity to deceive the Hindu woman and also married the woman as per Hindu rituals in a Hindu temple. This act itself demonstrates a clear bias and malicious intent towards the victim’s religion. By hiding his true identity, he manipulated her trust and targeted her under false pretences, indicating a premeditated effort to exploit the woman based on her religious background. Additionally, the marriage conducted according to Hindu rituals in a Hindu temple legitimised the relationship in the eyes of the woman and the wider Hindu community. This constituted a direct violation of her right to informed consent regarding whom she chose to marry, as well as an infringement upon her religious beliefs. Thus, the accused's deliberate decision to hide his religious identity strongly underscores the religious motive behind this crime. In such instances, identity concealment is not just a deceptive tactic for personal reasons but a calculated strategy rooted in religious profiling and targeting. The accused was aware that the victim, being Hindu, would likely refuse his advances if she knew his real identity, and he circumvented this by lying, which directly points to a religiously driven intent. This deception reflects a larger pattern where Hindu women are specifically singled out using false identities, often with coercion or conversion in mind. Such targeted victimisation based on religion not only demonstrates a fundamental disregard for Hinduism but also exposes a deeper animosity toward Hindus and their beliefs. The religious motivation was reinforced by the fact that the accused pressured the victim to convert to Islam after the marriage. This was not merely pressure arising from a disagreement between spouses over personal or family matters, as the pressure was specifically directed at changing the religious affiliation of a Hindu woman to Islam. The religious nature of this conduct was further strengthened by the statement made by the accused’s first wife during the dispute, who told the victim that the accused had married her with the intention of converting her from Hinduism to Islam. Pressuring a Hindu individual to discard her religious faith and embrace another was a direct attack on her religious identity and dignity. It was not a matter of personal choice; it was coercion rooted in hostility towards the victim's Hindu identity. Such an attempt reflects religious animosity because the act was not simply about personal differences but about erasing the victim’s Hindu faith, making it a religiously motivated crime. The victim was subjected to physical abuse, mental torment and sexual coercion in the broader context of pressure to convert to Islam. In such circumstances, sexual violence and physical abuse serve a dual purpose: physical subjugation and religious humiliation. The use of violence, intimidation and coercion against a Hindu woman while simultaneously pressuring her to abandon her faith function to break her down emotionally, physically and spiritually, making her more vulnerable to accepting the demanded religious change. The conduct therefore could not be viewed as random violence detached from the religious dimension of the case; rather, it formed part of a pattern of targeted coercion in which abuse was intertwined with pressure to alter the victim's religious identity. Such conduct was rooted in hostility towards the victim's professed Hindu faith and sought to undermine her ability to maintain that identity through sustained physical, psychological and religious pressure. Furthermore, the pressure to convert the victim’s three children to Islam further demonstrated the religious nature of the conduct. The children were minors, aged 11, 6 and 3 at the time the victim separated from her first husband, which made them particularly vulnerable to religious pressure and influence. It is important to note here that since the victims were minors, 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. The conversion pressure consequently extended the religiously motivated conduct beyond the victim herself and targeted the religious identity of her children as well. It is also important to address a question that often arises in such cases: if the woman discovered that the accused had concealed his religious identity, why did she remain in the relationship for several years? Such questions overlook the realities faced by many women in abusive or deceptive marriages. Walking away from a marriage is rarely an immediate or straightforward decision, especially once a family has been established. Emotional attachment, financial dependence, fear of social stigma, pressure from family, uncertainty about rebuilding one's life, and concerns over the future and custody of children often leave women feeling trapped. Many continue to hope that the situation will improve or fear that leaving will expose them and their children to even greater hardship. The fact that a victim remained in the relationship for years, therefore, should not be interpreted as acceptance of the deception or as evidence that the initial fraud became irrelevant. Instead, it reflects the difficult personal, social, and economic realities that often prevent victims from leaving relationships founded on deception. The conduct therefore demonstrated multiple indicators of religious hostility or coercion: concealment of Muslim identity in a relationship involving a Hindu woman, entry into a marriage conducted under Hindu customs, subsequent pressure to convert the victim to Islam, pressure directed towards her minor children, and the invocation of religious justification in connection with further abuse. Such actions stem from inherent hostility towards the victim's professed faith since Abrahamic faiths believe that any non-adherent to the faith is subject to being dehumanised till they convert. Such acts were not merely personal crimes; they were rooted in a desire to dominate and erase the religious identity of the victim. Since such predatory actions stem from doctrinal animosity towards the Hindu faith and its adherents, this case is being documented as a religiously motivated hate crime. Disclaimer: It is important to clarify that none of the media sources covering this case has specified the exact date when the victim's ordeal began. The earliest date mentioned is 29 June 2023, when they both met each other. Since Hinduphobia Tracker records the incident based on when the victim’s ordeal began and not when it was reported, we have considered the date of the incident as 29 June 2023, though the media reported the incident on 4 October 2026. Disclaimer: The perpetrator count was recorded as 3 based on the accused husband and his two elder brothers, who were named in the victim’s complaint in connection with the reported abuse, harassment and coercive conduct.
Victim Details
Total Victim
4
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 0
- Female 1
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 3
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 4
Age Group
- Minor 3
- Adult 1
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Complaint registered
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
