Hindu woman abused and attacked on train for displaying her faith

Case ID : aa4b0a3 | Location : Palghar, Maharashtra, India | Date of Incident : Fri, 2 May, 2025

Case ID : aa4b0a3

Palghar, Maharashtra, India

2 May, 2025

Hindu woman abused and attacked on train for displaying her faith

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for Hindu identity

Hate speech against Hindus

Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith

Case Summary

A Hindu woman advocate was brutally assaulted on the Mumbai-Indore Avantika Express after being falsely accused of theft by a co-passenger. The violence escalated when the co-passenger mocked her rudraksha bracelet and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj's tattoo, targeting her for visibly expressing her Hindu identity. “Wearing rudraksha is nonsense,” the Muslim woman stated to which the victim replied, “Do I say anything about your burqa? Then why are you offended by my beads?” The argument then descended into violence. Despite repeated pleas for help, assistance came only after she contacted the railway helpline, and the accused were later detained and charged with serious criminal offences. Advocate Sheetal Sharad Bhosale, a resident of Thane, boarded the Avantika Express late Saturday (May 3, 2025) night. She had boarded the general compartment due to the unavailability of reserved seats, intending to reach Indore to bring back her son. During the journey, a Muslim male passenger, inebriated, was disturbing other travellers, and amidst the chaos, a burqa-clad woman seated next to the Hindu victim accused her of stealing a purse. Bhosale denied the accusation and suggested that it may have gone missing during the commotion. Later, upon returning from the washroom, she found the same woman rifling through her belongings. When she questioned her, the woman accused her of theft and attacked her physically. The conflict escalated when the co-passenger objected to Bhosale’s religious accessories—a rudraksha bracelet and a tattoo with the name of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. A verbal exchange followed, during which the woman expressed disdain for the rudraksha, prompting a sharp response from Bhosale defending her right to wear religious symbols. As the train neared Saphale station around 9:45 pm, the woman pulled down Bhosale’s pyjama and slashed her with a blade. Bhosale sustained a deep injury to her arm while trying to protect herself. A male accomplice, believed to be the same drunk passenger from earlier, joined the assault and attempted to strike her with a key near her neck. Despite Bhosale’s repeated calls for help, a home guard at Vapi railway station did not intervene. Only after she contacted the railway helpline did Valsad Railway Police respond. The accused, identified as Rubina Yunus Pathan and Imtiyaz Amitbhai Odia, were detained, and Bhosale was taken to Valsad Medical College Hospital, where she received eight stitches. As the incident fell under Maharashtra’s jurisdiction, the suspects were transferred to Palghar Police the following morning. A case was registered and charges were filed under various sections, including attempt to murder, assault, molestation, intimidation, and theft. The incident triggered protests at Palghar railway station, prompting increased police presence. Bhosale stated that others on the train tried to prevent the incident from being recorded and that she felt surrounded and threatened during the assault. She also stated that the accused stole ₹1,500 from her handbag, and that her golden ring and silver chain also went missing.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Attack not resulting in death. Under this, the sub-category selected is- Attacked for Hindu identity. In several cases, Hindus are attacked merely for their Hindu identity without any perceived provocation. A classic example of this category of religiously motivated hate crime is a murder in 2016. 7 ISIS terrorists were convicted for shooting a school principal in Kanpur because they got ‘triggered’ seeing the Kalava on his wrist and tilak that he had put. In this, the Hindu victim had offered no provocation except for his Hindu religious identity. The motivation for the murder was purely religious, driven by religious supremacy. Such cases where Hindus are targeted merely for their religious identity would be documented as a hate crime under this category. The other sub-category selected is- Hate speech against Hindus. The 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. This attack on the Hindu woman, Sheetal Sharad Bhosale, is a hate crime because she was targeted for her religious identity. What began as a false accusation of theft quickly escalated into violence after the co-passenger expressed open hostility towards her Rudraksha bracelet and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj's tattoo, symbols associated with Hindu faith and cultural heritage. The assailant directed a communal slur at Advocate Bhosale by ridiculing her rudraksha bracelet, a sacred symbol in Hinduism. She disparaged it, targeting Bhosale's religious identity with disdain and hostility. The disdain shown towards these objects, coupled with the violent reaction following Bhosale’s defence of her right to wear them, demonstrates that the assault was not merely a personal dispute but an act of religious animosity. The brutal nature of the attack, pulling down her clothing and slashing her with a blade, was intended to humiliate and physically harm her, and was accompanied by communal overtones rather than a simple altercation. This case illustrates how visible expressions of Hindu identity can become a trigger for hostility in a communalised environment. When religious symbols become the focus of such violence, and when victims are attacked specifically because of their association with those symbols, it moves beyond a personal dispute and falls squarely into the realm of a hate crime.