Minor Hindu boy forced to change his religion and eat meat; victim's parents assaulted for opposing conversion attempt
Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India 
27 November, 2025
Case Summary
In the Sultanpur district of Uttar Pradesh, a 16-year-old Hindu boy named Prakhar Sharma was targeted and forced to convert to another religion by a man named Aditya Sharma, along with his family members, Pawan Sharma and Rekha Sharma, Aditya's mother. The victim, Prakhar, was also compelled to eat meat in order to desecrate his religious values. Even Prakhar's parents, who tried to oppose the conversion attempt and confront the accused, were subjected to physical assault. According to media reports, this incident came to light when the victim's father, Amit Kumar Sharma, a driver at Awadh Depot, Lucknow, filed a police complaint against the three accused: Aditya, Pawan, and Rekha. Amit stated that his son, Prakhar Sharma, had come into contact with Aditya Sharma from the village. Aditya Sharma is described as a person who is anti-Hindu and pressured Prakhar to convert to another faith and forced him to consume meat. Prakhar called his father and returned home to report that he had been forced to eat meat and that Aditya Sharma had even recorded a video of the incident. When they discussed the matter, Aditya threatened to kill Prakhar. According to the complaint, on the evening of 28th November 2025, while Prakhar was sitting alone, Aditya Sharma, Pawan Sharma, and Rekha Sharma began kicking, punching, and beating him with sticks, intending to kill him. When Prakhar ran into the house, the accused entered and continued to beat him. When Prakhar's mother ran to save him, the accused tried to attack her as well. She then locked the room and shouted for help. Seeing people approaching, the accused left the scene, abusing him and threatening to kill him if they found him anywhere. Upon learning of the incident, Amit Kumar Sharma immediately returned home from Varanasi. When he questioned the accused, they assaulted Amit and threatened to make Prakhar’s video viral. Following this series of incidents, based on Amit Kumar Sharma's complaint, the police registered a First Information Report (FIR) and initiated an investigation.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Predatory Proselytisation. 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. The subcategory selected is- Attacked for refusal to convert. When there is pressure, threat or coercion employed upon the Hindu victim to convert to a different religion, in several cases, the victim refuses to succumb to the pressure/threats. Once the victim refuses, the perpetrator proceeds to attack/assault the victim owing to his/her refusal to convert. In such cases, the pressure/threat/intimidation/coercion/violence itself is driven by animosity towards the victim’s Hindu faith. The violence then is another hate crime driven by the victim’s refusal to abandon his professed faith, Hinduism, and convert to the religion of a non-Hindu perpetrator. Since the victim’s faith is at the heart of the pressure to convert and the ensuing violence towards the victim, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. The other 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. This case is a blatant example of an anti-Hindu hate crime involving a minor Hindu boy who was deliberately targeted for forced religious conversion, subjected to assault and physical violence upon refusal, with his parents also violently attacked for opposing the perpetrators. Given the victim’s minor status, it is unequivocal that any element of consent was absent from the beginning. Minors, due to their young age, are especially vulnerable to manipulation and coercion. They lack the maturity to understand the long-term ramifications of converting to another religion. In this case, the perpetrators exploited this vulnerability by coercing the minor Hindu boy to abandon Hinduism and convert to another religion, intending to strip him of his faith. This reflects a deliberate and malicious attack on the religious identity of a Hindu child, clearly qualifying as an anti-Hindu hate crime. The manner in which the Hindu boy was forced to convert reveals deep-rooted religious hostility directed against him. Religious conversion that occurs without genuine, willful conviction—when imposed through external force, pressure, or coercion—fundamentally violates a child’s religious autonomy and their inherent right to practise their faith freely and peacefully. Such actions represent a blatant infringement on religious freedom, both towards Hinduism as a faith and the victim as an individual, making this case a clear and unequivocal instance of anti-Hindu hate crime. Moreover, the victim was pressured not only to abandon his religion but also to consume meat, an act he resisted because vegetarianism is a fundamental aspect of his Hindu practice. Forcing him to eat meat was a deliberate and calculated attempt to desecrate his religious beliefs, demonstrating profound hostility and disrespect towards his faith and identity. Beyond coercion, the victim endured relentless harassment and brutal physical assault, including punches and beatings with sticks, intended to cause serious harm or death following his refusal to convert. The use of violence and intimidation as tools to force conversion clearly constitutes a hate crime. These acts stem from deep-rooted religious animosity towards the victim and his faith, making this a religiously motivated offence. Additionally, the victim’s parents were separately attacked and assaulted when they opposed their child’s forced conversion and confronted the accused. Their resistance was solely driven by the desire to protect their son’s Hindu faith. The attack on the victim's parents was purely because they intervened to safeguard their child from religious coercion, exposing targeted religious animosity towards innocent Hindu protectors. This pattern, where Hindus face aggression from non-Hindu perpetrators for defending their community members, is commonly observed. Here, attacking the parents solely for defending their child’s right to remain Hindu clearly reinforces this case as another unmistakable anti-Hindu hate crime. Although the perpetrators’ religious identities remain unknown, their actions clearly stem from religious animosity against the Hindu victim, his family, and their faith. On these grounds, this case meets all the criteria of a religiously motivated hate crime. Consequently, it is being included in the hate crime database maintained by the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records the dates of incidents based on when the crime occurs or when the victim’s ordeal begins, rather than when it is reported by the media. In this particular case, media reports have not specified the exact date when the victim’s ordeal started. They only mention one date—28th November 2025—which is when all three accused attacked the Hindu boy, Prakhar. Therefore, this date is used as the indicative date of the incident. This designation is made solely for documentation purposes, to estimate when the victim’s ordeal began.
Victim Details
Total Victim
3
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 2
- Female 1
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 3
- Unknown 0
Age Group
- Minor 1
- Adult 2
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Complaint registered
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Unknown
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
both
Sources 
