Hindu man and his mother beaten by Muslim men while preparing temple for Holi in Uttar Pradesh's Mirzapur

Case ID : d327ace | Location : Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Tue, 3 March, 2026

Case ID : d327ace

Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, India

3 March, 2026

Hindu man and his mother beaten by Muslim men while preparing temple for Holi in Uttar Pradesh's Mirzapur

Attack not resulting in death

Attack against Hindu devotees

Attacked for supporting/being part of perceived Hindu party/org or working for Hindu community

Attack on Hindu religious representations

Encroachment or illicit takeover of temple land/land near temple

Case Summary

In the Sarroin Babu Majra in Raipur village, located under the Vindhyachal Kotwali jurisdiction, a Hindu man and his mother were attacked while cleaning a temple ahead of the Holi festival. The victims were identified as Anil Kumar Gupta, a resident of the village and a member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), and his mother, Budhni Devi. Both sustained serious injuries in the attack. Following the incident, police were deployed in the village as tensions escalated. According to reports, Anil Kumar Gupta, aged 40 and the son of the late Chintamani Gupta, was clearing bushes around an ancient temple in preparation for Holi celebrations. During this activity, four individuals from the Muslim community attacked him using bricks, stones, and rods. His 60-year-old mother, Budhni Devi, who intervened during the assault, also suffered head injuries. After receiving information about the incident, police personnel reached the location and transported the injured to the Community Health Centre in Vindhyachal. Due to the seriousness of their injuries, they were later referred to the divisional hospital for further treatment. Station House Officer Raghavendra Rai confirmed that, based on the complaint submitted by the injured party, a case was registered under sections related to assault and criminal intimidation. The accused were identified as Angoor Ali, son of Habibullah, Hasmat Ali, son of Khalifa, Saddam Ali, son of Ilyas, and Naushad Ali, son of Mansoor Ali, all residents of Babu Sarroin village. Police subsequently arrested all the named individuals. Anil Kumar Gupta stated that he serves as the cow protection chief for the Vindhyachal block of the VHP and Bajrang Dal. He also informed authorities that there had been ongoing disputes over encroachment on the temple land. According to his statement, tensions had existed since he began renovating the ancient temple approximately two years earlier, and he frequently encountered verbal abuse when visiting the site to carry out cleaning. Given the sensitivity of the situation, Superintendent of Police (City) Nitesh Kumar visited the site and directed officers to remain vigilant. Police personnel were stationed in the village to maintain order and prevent further escalation.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This incident has been added to the tracker under the category- Attack not resulting in death. Within this, the sub-category selected is- Attack against Hindu devotees. Hindu devotees are a few of the easiest targets of religiously motivated hate crimes because during the festival/procession/puja etc, for non-Hindus it is easy to profile their victims on the basis of religion. Hindu devotees come under attack on several occasions by individual non-Hindus or mobs of non-Hindus owing to their animosity against Hinduism, its symbols and tradition/practices. There are several instances of Hindu devotees being attacked while they worship in temples or temporary religious structures, during religious processions, doing bhajan/kirtan/puja in their own homes, in the residential society etc. These attacks are perpetrated by non-Hindus primarily because of their animosity towards Hindus and their faith. In some cases, the trigger for the violence may be non-religious, however, there are two elements that make these hate crimes. First, the Hindus who come under attack are attacked violently while indulging in religious activity. Whether they are in a place of worship or not is immaterial to the crime. When individuals are attacked while indulging in religious practices, the attack in itself is a hindrance to their freedom to practice religion and therefore constitutes a hate crime. Secondly, religious supremacist doctrines and ideologies deem religious practices of Hindus to be offensive ab initio since they are considered “sinful” by these ideologies, worthy to be annihilated by force or coercion. Driven by these religious supremacist ideologies and doctrines, the attacks against Hindu devotees stem from intrinsic animosity towards Hinduism. In some cases, the trigger for the violence may be non-religious, however, it develops into a religiously motivated crime during the course of the violence. Since these attacks stem from animosity towards Hindus and Hinduism, they are considered religiously motivated hate crimes under this category. The other subcategory selected is- Attacked for supporting/being part of perceived Hindu party/org or working for Hindu community. In several cases, Hindus are attacked specifically or tangentially for their association with parties or organisations perceived to be pro-Hindu and/or for working in favour of the Hindu community. One of the classic cases was the attack against a Bharatiya Janata Party Yuva Morcha (BJYM) worker Praveen Nettaru. Nettaru was attacked and hacked to death for his association with Hindu organizations and his work for the Hindu community. He was murdered by PFI, a terror organization which aimed to commit a genocide of Hindus, target Hindu leaders specifically and turn India into an Islamic Nation. In such cases, it is possible that the immediate trigger for the violence is non-religious – either according to the perpetrator or the police. However, there are surrounding circumstances from which the conclusion can be reached that the victim was attacked for his association with a Hindu organization. In a similar case, Rinku Sharma was attacked by radicals. He was a member of Bajrang Dal and regularly worked for the Hindu community. While the police cited a different non-religious trigger for the attack, it is true that he was associated to a Hindu organization and the family of Rinku Sharma specifically attributed his gruesome murder to him working for Bajrang Dal and raising Jai Shree Ram slogans. Such cases are intrinsically driven by religious hate and would therefore be documented as a hate crime under this category. The second category selected is- Attack on Hindu religious representations. Within this, the subcategory selected is- Encroachment or illicit takeover of temple land/land near temple. In Hinduism, a temple is the abode of the Deity. The Deity in the Temple is consecrated, thereby, making it a real, breathing entity. Hindus believe that not just the Deity but the temple premises itself are sacred to Hindus since Hindus hold the faith that the entire Temple space is an amalgamation of the divine energy of the deity. Not only the Temple but the Temple premises in its entirety are considered sacred by Hindus. In several cases, the premises of the Temple and/or religious centre are illicitly taken over by institutions belonging to other faiths – like the Waqf board or the Church. Other times, the temple property, land or the property of religious centres are illicitly encroached by non-Hindu groups. Any illicit take over or encroachment is a crime an initio, however, when non-Hindu groups illicitly take over or encroach the sacred land of Hindus, it is an affront to the Hindu community and is therefore classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. This incident reflects hostility directed at Hindu religious practice and those associated with the protection and upkeep of a Hindu place of worship. The attack occurred while the victim was clearing bushes around an ancient temple in preparation for the Holi festival, an activity directly linked to facilitating a Hindu religious celebration. Cleaning and maintaining temple premises ahead of festivals is a common devotional act carried out by local worshippers. The violence, therefore, took place in the context of a religious activity connected to temple worship and the preparation of a sacred site for a major Hindu festival. Targeting an individual engaged in such activity directly affects the community’s ability to organise and participate in religious observances. The victim’s role within Hindu organisations further contributed to the hostility he faced. He identified himself as serving as a cow protection chief for the Vindhyachal block of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal. Individuals associated with organisations perceived to represent Hindu interests frequently become targets of antagonism in areas where communal tensions exist. The fact that the victim was engaged in temple-related work while also being known locally for his association with such organisations indicates that the attack was not a random altercation but occurred within an environment where his religious activism had already made him a focal point of hostility. Another important aspect of the case is the dispute over land adjoining the temple. According to the victim’s statement, tensions had been ongoing for some time regarding encroachment on temple land. The temple had been renovated approximately two years earlier, and since then, he had reportedly faced abuse while visiting the site to clean and maintain the premises. Encroachment on temple property and resistance to efforts aimed at restoring or maintaining a temple often generate conflict because such actions are seen by the local Hindu community as an attempt to undermine their religious space and restrict access to places of worship. The attack itself involved the use of bricks, stones, and rods, and it occurred when the victim was engaged in temple maintenance. His elderly mother was also injured when she attempted to intervene. The timing of the assault, the religious nature of the activity being carried out, the victim’s known association with Hindu organisations, and the background dispute related to temple land together indicate that the violence was not merely interpersonal. It occurred within a context where religious identity, temple space, and efforts to protect or maintain that space were central to the confrontation. Taken together, the facts show that the victims were targeted while performing a devotional activity linked to a Hindu religious festival, that the primary victim was known for his involvement in organisations associated with Hindu community interests, and that the site of the conflict was land attached to a temple. These elements collectively demonstrate that the incident was rooted in hostility surrounding Hindu religious practice and the defence and maintenance of a Hindu place of worship.