Case Summary

In Tundla, Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh, a Hindu woman named Jamuna was deceived into marriage by a Christian man named Brijmohan, who pretended to be Hindu. The accused pressured her to accept Christianity and also subjected her and her minor daughters to forced conversion. The Hindu victims were even barred from worshipping Hindu deities. According to media reports, the Hindu woman, a resident of Shikau village in the Pachokhra police station area, stated that she had married a man from Anand Nagar, Tundla, 11 years ago according to Hindu rituals. After the marriage, they had two daughters, aged 10 and 7. The woman said that her husband had concealed the fact that he was a Christian before their marriage and that he later attempted to convert her and their daughters to Christianity. He placed a large picture of Jesus Christ in their house and forced her to stop worshipping Hindu gods. When she resisted, he verbally abused her and physically assaulted her with kicks and punches. She further stated that her husband forcibly took their daughters to church and made them participate in Christian practices. In 2024, he had compelled their elder daughter to take part in a Christian ceremony, telling her, "Now you are a Christian." When the woman protested, her husband attacked her with scissors and attempted to kill her. The victim added that her husband’s brother and his wife also took part in the assault and coercion. On 6th September 2025, her husband severely beat her for refusing to convert. She managed to escape with her two daughters and reached her parents’ house. Following this, on 21st September 2025, at 12 noon, the victim, along with her father and daughter, went to the Pachokhra police station with Sanjay Pratap Singh, the district president of the Hindu Jagran Manch. Police station officer Parul Mishra stated that the case fell under the jurisdiction of the Tundla police station and that the woman had been sent there. According to the police, an investigation was underway based on the woman’s complaint. The Tundla police inspector was instructed to take appropriate action, and further steps would be taken following the investigation. On 6 April 2026, journalist Swati Goel Sharma, who is also a Hindu activist associated with the Hindu organisation Rashtra Jyoti, tweeted about the case. She stated that Brijmohan spent barely six months in jail before securing bail last month (March 2026) from the Firozabad court in Uttar Pradesh. The first thing he did upon release was file for divorce, accusing Jamuna of adultery. He also transferred his property to his nephew’s name. That nephew’s family, as Swati learnt from neighbours during her ground visit, drew him into the conversion network. Swati also stated that her organisation hired a lawyer for Jamuna’s case, covering maintenance, her share in property, and the conversion case, and they were in the process of securing her daughter’s school admission.

Case Images

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. Within this, the first subcategory selected is- Man pretends to be Hindu. The tertiary category selected is- Marries as per Hindu customs. 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 subcategory selected 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 subcategory selected 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. Another primary category selected is- Predatory Proselytisation. Within this, the subcategory selected 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 other subcategory selected is- Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. The tertiary category selected is- 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. Another primary category selected is- Attack not resulting in death. Within this, the subcategory 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. In this case, the Hindu woman was deceived into a marriage by a Christian man pretending to be Hindu. After this, she was pressured to convert to Christianity. Firstly, the perpetrator's act of deception by posing as a Hindu itself demonstrates a clear bias and malicious intent towards the victim’s religion. By hiding his true identity, the Christian man manipulated the Hindu woman's trust and targeted her under false pretences, indicating a premeditated effort to exploit the woman based on her religious background. Additionally, the marriage 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 chooses to marry, as well as an infringement upon her religious beliefs. Thus, the perpetrator’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. Secondly, following the marriage, the victim was forced to convert to Christianity. Conversion, when not exercised out of free will but under pressure, persuasion, or coercion, constitutes a violation of religious autonomy. The Christian perpetrator’s actions clearly reflected animosity towards the Hindu woman’s faith, as he sought to strip her of her Hindu religious identity. Forced conversions of this nature expose the deep-seated hostility against the victim for being Hindu, demonstrating that this was a crime rooted in religious motivation. When the woman refused to convert, she was repeatedly assaulted by her Christian husband. These acts of violence against her refusal revealed the extent of hatred the Christian perpetrator carried towards her Hindu identity. Violence and assault used as instruments of religious conversion represent an ingrained fanaticism. The victim was not attacked merely as a spouse but specifically as a Hindu woman who resisted abandoning her faith. The Hindu woman was not only deceived into marriage but was also systematically coerced and pressured to abandon her religion. Such coercion nullified her autonomy and established a pattern of deliberate religious persecution. This case shows how religious animosity was operationalised through both emotional pressure and physical violence, targeting her faith directly. The persecution extended beyond her. Her two minor daughters, aged ten and seven, were also coerced into conversion. Since minors are also the victims here, 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 Christian perpetrator purposely targeted and exploited this vulnerability of the minor victims. Since this case exemplifies the use of coercion and manipulation to achieve religious conversion, it is a blatant act of a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus. The Christian perpetrator also forcibly took the minors to church and made them participate in Christian practices. These acts show that his actions were not just directed against the Hindu woman but also against the religious upbringing of the minors. His intention was clear: to strip the entire family of its Hindu beliefs and impose Christianity. This demonstrated embedded religious hostility against their Hindu identity. The accused also placed a large image of Jesus Christ inside the house and forbade the family from worshipping Hindu deities. Hindu deities hold the highest reverence among Hindus, and the perpetrator’s act of preventing the victims from offering worship demonstrated the extent of his hostility towards the Hindu faith. His actions clearly revealed an intent to sever the Hindu woman and her minor daughters from their ties to Hinduism, making this a religiously motivated hate crime. When the Hindu woman attempted to resist and tried to prevent her daughters from being subjected to church rituals, her Christian husband attacked her with scissors in an attempt to kill her. This violent response came solely because she opposed the forced religious conversion of her Hindu children. It showed the extreme level of hatred and animosity the accused held towards her Hindu faith and her right to practise and protect it. Additionally, the Hindu woman faced hostility and coercion not just from her husband, but also from his brother and sister-in-law. They also participated in the assault and coercion. This showed it was not merely an individual act but a calculated, collective effort to strip the Hindu woman and her daughters of their faith, making it a religiously motivated crime. Given that this case touches upon numerous parameters of a religiously motivated hate crime—including deception at marriage based on hidden identity, coercion into conversion, physical assault for resisting conversion, targeting of minors, and an attempt to murder a Hindu woman for protecting her faith—it is being added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records the date of incidents based on when the victims’ ordeal began, rather than when the matter was reported in the media. In this case, the incident was reported by the media on 21st September 2025. Media reports did not specify the exact date when the victim’s ordeal began, though they indicated that it started around 11 years ago when the Hindu woman married the accused. The report, however, clearly mentioned 21st September 2025 as the date when the complaint against the accused was filed. Considering both the 11-year timeline and the complaint date of 21st September 2025, the Tracker is using 21st September 2014 as the indicative date of incidence for recording purposes.