Gujarat High Court Rules 'Victims' of Conversion Can Become Accused if They Induce Others

Ahmedabad, India – In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for cases involving religious conversion, the Gujarat High Court has established that individuals who were once considered "victims" of conversion can be prosecuted as accused if they subsequently engage in alluring or inducing others to convert. The court, while refusing to quash a First Information Report (FIR), clarified that the shield of victimhood is not absolute and can be forfeited through subsequent actions that perpetuate the alleged offence.

Justice Nirzar S Desai, in rejecting a batch of petitions filed by several accused, drew a clear line between being a passive recipient of conversion and becoming an active agent in a larger scheme. This judgment delves into the complex transition from victim to perpetrator within the framework of criminal law, particularly concerning offences of promoting religious enmity and criminal conspiracy.

Background of the Case: From Conversion to Conspiracy

The matter came before the High Court through a series of petitions seeking to quash an FIR registered against 16 individuals. The genesis of the case lies in a complaint filed by a man who alleged he was fraudulently converted to Islam in 2018. According to the FIR, the complainant was taken to Surat, where his thumb impression was taken on a pre-typed document through misrepresentation. Subsequently, his name was changed, and a new Aadhar card was procured.

The allegations, however, extended far beyond a single act of conversion. The complainant claimed to have uncovered a large-scale, nationwide conspiracy aimed at converting Hindus to Islam, allegedly bankrolled by significant financial aid from foreign countries. The FIR specifically named individuals who were receiving funds to allure people with money and other temptations, claiming they had already converted approximately 100 people from 37 families. When the original complainant began to resist these activities, he was allegedly threatened by the accused, who boasted of connections extending "from Kashmir to Pakistan."

A crucial aspect of the case involved several of the accused petitioners who argued that the FIR against them was misconceived because they were, in fact, victims themselves. They contended that they were originally Hindus who had been converted to Islam by other co-accused, and therefore, they could not be arraigned as perpetrators of the very offence they had suffered.

The High Court's Prima Facie Analysis

Justice Desai's bench meticulously examined the material presented, including the FIR and witness statements collected during the investigation. The court fundamentally disagreed with the petitioners' "victim" defence, focusing instead on their alleged actions post-conversion.

The court observed that the status of a "victim" is contingent on their conduct. Justice Desai noted, "had those persons, after getting converted, not indulged into any activity of further converting other persons, they could have been said to be victims of religious conversion."

However, the evidence pointed to a different narrative. The court found that there was a prima facie case against the petitioners based on their alleged active participation in a wider conversion network. "However, on account of their act of influencing and pressurizing and alluring other persons to convert to Islam, as can be seen from the FIR as well as statements of the witnesses... conversion of the victims indicates that a prima facie offence is made out," the court stated.

The ruling emphasized the petitioners' alleged subsequent conduct as the differentiating factor that transforms their legal standing from victim to accused. The court concluded, "It is their further act of converting further people around 100 in numbers of 37 families to Islam would prima facie make out an offence against them and, therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the trial."

The accused were booked under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including: * Section 120(B): Criminal Conspiracy * Section 153(A)(1): Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion * Section 153(B)(1)(C): Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration * Section 295(A): Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings

The Foreign Funding Angle and Non-Cooperation

The court also dealt with a separate plea from a foreign national accused of providing the financial backing for the alleged conversion activities. Scrutinizing the record, the court found that a prima facie case "can be said to have been made out against the present applicant."

Significantly, the court took note of the petitioner's conduct post the registration of the FIR. It was pointed out that he had visited India 25 times before the offence was registered but had been uncooperative with the investigation since. This lack of cooperation was a key factor in the court's decision to deny his plea, reinforcing the principle that those seeking equitable relief from the court must approach with clean hands and demonstrate a willingness to participate in the legal process.

Legal Implications and Broader Context

This judgment from the Gujarat High Court is a critical development in the jurisprudence surrounding anti-conversion laws and related penal provisions. It provides judicial clarity on a complex legal question: Can a person be both a victim and an accused in the same chain of offences? The court’s answer is a conditional yes, hinging entirely on the individual's actions.

The ruling establishes that the "victim" defence cannot be used as an indefinite shield to escape culpability for subsequent, similar criminal acts. For legal practitioners, this means that in defending such cases, merely establishing a client's initial victimhood is insufficient. The focus must also be on demonstrating that the client did not subsequently become a willing participant or perpetrator. Conversely, for the prosecution, this judgment strengthens the ability to charge individuals who, after being converted, become active proselytizers within an allegedly illegal framework.

The allegations of foreign funding and a "nationwide conspiracy" in this case mirror concerns raised in similar investigations across the country. For instance, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been actively investigating money laundering angles in alleged illegal religious conversion rackets, such as the case in Uttar Pradesh where an aide to a religious figure was taken into custody. In that investigation, the ED alleged that over Rs 60 crore, including foreign funds, were funneled through various accounts to coerce economically disadvantaged individuals into converting and to acquire properties.

These parallel investigations by different agencies highlight a multi-pronged state response to organized conversion activities, viewing them not merely as isolated religious offences but as potential threats involving financial crimes and national security concerns. The Gujarat High Court's ruling, by refusing to quash the FIR and allowing the trial to proceed against those claiming to be victims, aligns with this broader enforcement perspective that seeks to dismantle the entire operational network, from funders to on-ground agents, regardless of their own conversion history.

As the trial in this case proceeds, it will be closely watched by the legal community for its potential to set further precedents on the evidentiary standards required to prove inducement, allurement, and the existence of a larger criminal conspiracy in matters of religious conversion.

(Case Title: X v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. and Batch - R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 309 of 2022)