Hindu minor molested by two Muslim youths, victim's family assaulted and abused with casteist slurs for confronting the accused
Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, India 
19 March, 2025
Case Summary
In Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, a Dalit minor girl was molested by two Muslim youths, identified as Monish and Arish, while playing badminton outside her home. When the girl’s family confronted the accused at their food stall, they were brutally attacked with hot oil, sticks, and stones. In his complaint, the girl’s father stated that the victim was playing outside her house when two boys from a neighboring community, identified as Monish and Arish, molested her. They grabbed her from behind and said, "We won’t let you go; we really like you," while also inappropriately touching her. The girl struggled to break free and, with great difficulty, managed to escape to her home, where she informed her father about the incident. Upon stepping outside to confront the accused, the father was met with a violent response. Monish and Arish, accompanied by Shahzad, Wasim, Salman, Sameer, Parvez, Ashu, Qasim, Nazim, and 10-12 other unidentified individuals, gathered in aggression. They hurled caste-based slurs at him before launching a brutal attack using sharp weapons such as knives, daggers, sticks, and batons. In a horrifying escalation, the attackers also poured hot oil on the father. They also raised religious slogans and pelted stones from the rooftop of the house. Hearing the commotion, many people gathered, and upon seeing them, some of the attackers threatened, “If he comes here again, we’ll kill him.” Fearing for his life, the complainant escaped and reached the police station to file a complaint against them. Based on the complaint of the father of the minor girl, an FIR was registered in the matter under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 125, 74, 115(2), 352, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and relevant sections of the SC/ST Act against Monish, Arish, Shahzad, Wasim, Salman, Sameer, Parvez, Ashu alias Behl, Kasim, Nazim, and one unidentified individual. A video of the incident was recorded by a bystander. It captured the disturbing visuals of the attack and screaming voices. After the video went viral, one of the accused was arrested by the police.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the prime category of- Attack not resulting in death. Within this, the sub-category selected is- Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save 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. The second category selected is- Hate speech against Hindus. Within this, the first sub-category selected is- Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith. Anti-Hindu slurs and the deliberate mocking of the Hindu faith owing to religious animosity involve the usage of derogatory terms, stereotypes, or offensive references to religious practices, symbols, or figures. One of the common anti-Hindu slurs used against Hindus is “cow-worshipper” and “cow piss drinker”. The intention of using this term is to demean and mock Hindus as a group and their religious beliefs since Hindus consider the cow holy. Additionally, some symbols and the slurs attached to them have a historical context that exacerbates the insult, hate, stereotyping, dehumanisation and oppression against Hindus. Cow worship has been used for centuries to denigrate Hindus, insult their faith and oppress Hindus specifically as a religious group. There has been overwhelming documentation about how cow slaughter has been used to persecute Hindus with cow meat being thrown in temples and places of worship. There has also been overwhelming documentation where cow meat (beef) has been force-fed to Hindus to either forcefully convert them to Islam or denigrate their faith. Apart from cow worship, the Swastika – which holds deep religious significance for the Hindus – has also been misinterpreted and distorted to use as a slur against Hindus. Similarly, the worship of the Shivling has been used by supremacist ideologies and religions to denigrate Hindus owing to religious animosity. Such slurs and denigration stem out of inherent animosity and hate towards Hindus and their faith, therefore, it is categorised as hate speech targeted at Hindus specifically owing to their religious identity. The second sub-category selected is- Violent threats. Violent threats, explicit, implicit or implied, is the most dangerous form of hate speech since it goes beyond discriminatory and prejudicial language to express the intent of causing harm to an individual or a group of people based on their religious identity and faith. There could be several different kinds of threats that are issued to Hindus based on religious animosity. An explicit threat would mean the direct threat of violence towards an individual Hindu, a group of Hindus or Hindus at large. Physical violence, death threats, threats of destruction of property belonging to Hindus and threats of genocide would mean explicit threats against Hindus for their religious identity. Implicit threats may not be a direct threat but implied through the use of symbols of actions – for example – in the Nupur Sharma case, other than explicit threats, there were also implicit threats when Islamists took to the streets to burn and beat her effigies. It implies that they want to do the same to Nupur Sharma – thereby is considered an implicit threat. Violent threats can be delivered in person, through letters, phone calls, graffiti, or increasingly through social media and other online platforms. It would be important to understand that a threat – explicit or implicit, online or offline – to an individual who happens to be a Hindu does not qualify as a religiously motivated threat. Such a threat, while vile and dangerous, could be owing to non-religious reasons and/or personal animosity. To qualify as a religiously motivated threat, it would need to exhibit an indication that the individual is being targeted for religious reasons and/or owing to his/her religious identity as a Hindu. In such cases, usually victims are profiled based on their religious identity; however, even if one were to momentarily consider that the molestation of the Dalit minor girl was a crime of opportunity and no religious motive existed, the subsequent attack on her family unmistakably reveals deep-seated religious animosity. When the father of the victim attempted to confront the accused, the situation escalated into a coordinated and premeditated attack involving multiple individuals who not only used physical violence but also targeted the family with caste-based slurs, verbal abuse, and religious intimidation. At this point, it can be argued that a caste-specific slur is aimed at her micro identity of belonging to the Dalit section of the Hindu community and not her Hindu identity itself. However, as far as Abrahamic religions are concerned, the micro identities of caste, region, and language are secondary. It is the religious identity that drives the animosity of the perpetrator against the Hindu victim. In this case, while the accused hurled caste abuses at the victim's family, the animosity was driven by his animosity towards Hinduism and Hindus. While the immediate trigger of the violence could be the opposition to the molestation of the minor girl, as mentioned in reports, the fact that caste slurs were hurled at the victim by the perpetrator makes it a religiously motivated hate crime against the victim. Furthermore, the use of weapons such as knives, daggers, sticks, and batons—along with the deliberate act of pouring hot oil on the victim’s father—shows a clear intent to inflict severe harm. The attackers also raised anti-Hindu slogans and issued violent threats, warning the family of dire consequences if they dared to resist or seek justice. These elements indicate that the violence was not merely a reaction to the confrontation but a calculated attempt to terrorise the victim’s family solely because they stood up against the perpetrators and sought accountability for the molestation. Instead of facing consequences for their actions, the accused and their associates retaliated with even greater aggression, attempting to silence the family through fear and brutality.
Case Status
Case sub-judice
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 10 to 100
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
