Hindu youth brutally attacked by Christian evangelists for opposing illegal religious conversion activities
Rohtak, Haryana, India 
10 December, 2025
Case Summary
In the Bhaini Chandrapal village of Rohtak district, Haryana, a Hindu youth named Mohit was brutally attacked by Christian evangelists for opposing illegal religious conversion activities. According to reports, the Hindu youth, Mohit, a resident of the village, stated that an organised conversion gang was operating in the village, targeting poor settlements, offering money and assurances of curing illnesses to Hindu villagers in exchange for religious conversion. He came to know about the gang while they were scouting for land to establish a church, with repeated visits on Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. On 11 December 2025, Mohit received information that Christian evangelists would be coming to the village. When Mohit reached the spot, he found a man Kashmir speaking on the phone; when questioned, Kashmir abused him and summoned Vishnu alias Balleri. Meanwhile, Kashmir grabbed Mohit while Vishnu took out a revolver and attempted to fire it three to four times, but the weapon failed. The attackers then repeatedly struck Mohit with a rod, brutally assaulting him, inflicting 15–20 blows. When another villager named Suresh arrived, the attackers fled the scene. Based on the complaint filed by the victim, the police registered an FIR for assault and criminal intimidation and initiated an investigation. The investigating officer later claimed that no material confirming religious conversion was recovered during the initial inquiry and that the matter was being pursued as a case of physical violence between two groups.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category selected in this case is- Attack not resulting in death. 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. This case constituted a clear instance of a religiously motivated hate crime against a Hindu man, Mohit, who was violently targeted for opposing organised religious conversion activities aimed at Hindus in his village. The attack was neither random nor incidental but arose directly from his resistance to conversion efforts that targeted economically vulnerable Hindu residents through inducements such as money and assurances of curing illnesses. Mohit’s intervention disrupted these activities, and his opposition to the establishment of a church and ongoing proselytisation marked him as a threat to the conversion network, making him the target of retaliatory violence. The brutality of the assault underscored its communal and intimidatory nature. Mohit was forcibly restrained, threatened with a revolver placed against him and subjected to an attempted shooting, which failed due to a malfunction, before being brutally beaten with a rod. The use of a firearm, followed by a sustained physical assault, reflected a deliberate intent to inflict severe harm and to terrorise him for standing against forced religious conversion of Hindus. Such violence functioned as a warning to other Hindus in the village, aimed at deterring resistance and enforcing silence through fear. The attack reflected a broader pattern in which Hindus who assert their religious rights and stand up for their community against conversion-related coercion are subjected to targeted violence for their activism. Mohit was assaulted not due to any personal enmity but because of his role in exposing and resisting organised conversion activities within the village. By targeting Mohit for defending his community and challenging religious proselytisation, the perpetrators exhibited hostility rooted in religious intolerance. The assault was intended to silence a Hindu voice opposing conversion and to assert dominance through intimidation and physical violence. This firmly established the incident as a religiously motivated hate crime against a Hindu individual, driven by animosity towards Hindu resistance to organised conversion efforts.
Victim Details
Total Victim
1
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 1
- Female 0
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 1
Age Group
- Minor 0
- Adult 0
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 1
Case Status
Complaint registered
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Christian Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
