No conversions to Christianity, but UP court sentences 3 based on BJP worker's testimony

The sentencing of three men to six years of rigorous imprisonment under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, by a court in Azamgarh on charges of mass conversion has raised questions about the credibility of the witnesses and the absence of those who had allegedly converted from Hinduism to Christianity.

Although no individuals were found to have actually converted from Hinduism to Christianity, the court’s decision was based on the testimonies of four men—one a BJP worker, one his friend, and two police officials—raising questions about the evidence presented during the trial, The Wire reported.

The convicted individuals, Balchand Jaisawar, Gopal Prajapati, and Neeraj Kumar, were found guilty on charges that they attempted to convert a BJP worker, Ashok Kumar Yadav, to Christianity.

According to Yadav, who lodged the First Information Report (FIR), the accused had invited him to join a prayer meeting and convert to Christianity. When he refused, he alleged that they abused and threatened him. The prosecution, however, only presented four witnesses: Yadav himself, his friend, and two policemen.

This case came shortly after the Uttar Pradesh government introduced a law targeting unlawful religious conversions. The law, passed in December 2020, defined mass conversion as the conversion of two or more people through misrepresentation, coercion, undue influence, or fraudulent means.

It carries penalties of up to 10 years of imprisonment. The law has been controversial, with critics arguing that it has been used to target religious minorities, particularly Christian groups, accused of proselytising.

Yadav’s complaint, which initiated the case, alleged that the three accused were attempting to convert Hindus in his village under the guise of a prayer meeting. He claimed that they had pressured him to convert when he attended the meeting at the house of a local resident. The police later arrested the accused and claimed to have found Christian religious material at the scene, including a Bible and a document.

Despite the conviction, questions remain about the strength of the case. The prosecution relied solely on the testimonies of Yadav, his friend Divyanshu Singh, and two police officers involved in drafting the FIR and investigating the case.

There were no independent witnesses presented, and no evidence of any monetary or material inducement to support claims of attempted conversion. This lack of additional testimony has raised concerns among legal experts and observers about the fairness of the trial.

The convicted individuals argued that they were falsely accused for political reasons, pointing out that both Jaisawar and Prajapati were practising Hindus. Jaisawar, a Dalit, and Prajapati, from the Other Backward Classes, even submitted their caste certificates to the court as proof of their Hindu identity.

Another point of contention in the case was the use of a controversial statement made by an Allahabad High Court judge in a separate case regarding religious conversions. The judge had warned that conversions to Christianity could lead to the Hindu majority becoming a minority in India, and the state government’s lawyers reproduced this statement during the trial. However, on the same day the Azamgarh court delivered its verdict, the Supreme Court barred the use of this statement in any legal proceedings.

The defence also challenged the court’s interpretation of Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The law places the burden of proof on the person accused of facilitating a conversion to demonstrate that it was not carried out through coercion, force, or fraudulent means. The court applied this burden to the accused, even though no conversion had actually taken place, a point the defence argued undermined the prosecution’s case.

Despite these legal challenges, the court upheld the conviction, with the judge stating that the evidence presented was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had attempted to convert Yadav and others. The judge also noted that independent witnesses often refrain from supporting prosecution in such cases due to concerns about their safety, implying that the lack of additional testimony should not detract from the case’s credibility.