ARTICLE AD BOX
![]()
In its order, the court observed that the convicts committed a grave offence by attacking and burning a police outpost within the Deva police station jurisdiction, looting property and assaulting police personnel.
LUCKNOW: A Barabanki court on Monday convicted 22 persons in connection with the 2015 attack, arson and loot of the Mati police outpost under Deva police station limits, while acquitting all the accused of the charge of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Barabanki, Rakesh Kumar Singh pronounced the judgment.According to the court order dated May 25, 2026, all 22 convicts were held guilty under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with weapons), 395 (dacoity), 397 (causing injury), 332 (causing hurt to public servant), 353 (use force against public servant), 436 (mischief by fire), 504 (insult) and 506 (intimidation) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment (CLA) Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.A penalty of Rs 50,000 was also imposed on them. However, the court acquitted them of the charge under Section 307 IPC after finding insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of attempt to murder.The convicted persons include Kanhaiya Rawat, Kamlesh Verma, Sarvesh Kumar Verma, Kamlesh Rawat, Sonelal Rawat, Rakesh Rawat, Rajesh Verma, Ramu, Ajay Kumar Verma, Ranjeet Rawat, Angad Rawat, Rinku Verma, Chandrika Rawat, Dharmendra Rawat, Mantri Rawat, Vinod Rawat, Durgesh Rawat, Baida, Pramod Loniya, Putan alias Deshraj Verma, Siraj and Kabir.
To recall, violence erupted on August 31, 2015, a day after an accused allegedly died by suicide inside the Deva police station lock-up in Barabanki district. According to the FIR, nearly 150 men and women armed with lathis, iron rods and inflammable material attacked the Mati police outpost after being allegedly instigated by local leaders.The mob allegedly assaulted policemen torched the outpost, motorcycles and structures, vandalised wireless systems and attempted to loot weapons from the armoury.
Cash, records and police equipment were also allegedly looted. The incident triggered panic in the area, forcing markets to shut and prompting police to register serious charges including rioting, arson and attempt to murder.Separate charge sheets were later filed against different sets of accused between November 2015 and June 2016. The cases were eventually committed to the sessions court as the offences were exclusively triable by it.
Since both sessions trials arose from the same incident, the court conducted a joint trial for convenience.During arguments on sentencing, the defence counsel told the court that the incident was not premeditated and occurred after anger spread among villagers over the custodial death of one Subhash Rajvanshi in the lock-up of Deva police station. The defence argued that information had circulated that Rajvanshi died due to police assault, following which the accused, in a state of outrage, became involved in the violence.The defence also pleaded for leniency, stating that the convicts belonged to poor families, had dependent children and were sole breadwinners. It argued that imposing maximum punishment would devastate their families economically.Opposing the plea, the prosecution led by DGC Criminal, Arvind Rajput submitted that the accused had carried out a “daring and lawless attack” on the Mati police outpost.Rajput argued that the mob set the outpost ablaze, assaulted policemen, looted government records and cash, and caused grievous injuries to police personnel.
It was further stated that two constables posted at the outpost suffered fractures in their hands during the assault.In its order, the court observed that the convicts committed a grave offence by attacking and burning a police outpost within the Deva police station jurisdiction, looting property and assaulting police personnel.At the same time, the judge noted the economic and family circumstances of the convicts and held that awarding the maximum punishment would not be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, Verma told TOI.

English (US) ·