I Request Before Media To Give Me An Opportunity To Present My Evidences

VISION FOR ALL

• 270 Posts
• 28 Comments

I REQUEST BEFORE MEDIA TO GIVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO KEEP MY EVIDENCES BEFORE MEDIA ………

Rahul kumar

________________________________________
Chairman of Bihar Human Rights Commission,DM,SDO,HRD and NVS officers have protected a criminal principal who trapped me after complaining against him and due to working against corruption.Please give me an opportunity to prove my innocence before media.Writ petition has been filed in High Court of Patna….
9 messages
________________________________________
Rahul kumar Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:48 PM
To: kislaya@prabhatkhabar.in, muzaffarpur , sanjay_katiyar2006 , feedback , Pathaknama , mail@indiatvnews.com, mailbox , inews , postmaster@forms.com, info , postmaster@liveindia.tv, shashi.shekhar@hindustantimes.com, news , viewsp7@gmail.com, response , starnews , info@toi.com, contact@toi.com, feedback@hindustantimes.com, muzaffarpur@prabhatkhabar.in, muzaffarpur@mzf.jagran.com, patnaaaj@gmail.com, web.thehindu@thehindu.co.in, news@dailytelegraph.com.au, zeehelpline@zeenetwork.com, pravin.b@etv.co.in
Please see the all respondents of my case made in High Court….
1. The Union of India ,Through the Secretary,Ministry of Human Resource and Development
At Shastri Bhawan , New Delhi.
2. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti , Through its Commissioner at B-15,Sector-62,Institutional
Area,Noida
3. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,Regional Office,Patna,Through its Deputy Commissioner at-
Boring Road(Opposite AN College) ,Patna
4.Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,Birauli,Samastipur,Through its principal
5.The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,Birauli,Samastipur
6. The Bihar State Human Rights Commission,Through its Deputy Secretary ,At- 9,Bailey
Road ,Patna
7.The Chairman, The Bihar State Human Rights Commission,At- 9,Bailey Road ,Patna
8.Samastipur District Administration,Through the District Magistrate,Samastipur At-
Collectorate,Mohanpur Road,Samastipur
9.The Officer On Special Duty,Zila Gopniya Prasakha, At-Collectorate,Mohanpur
Road,Samastipur
10.The Officer Incharge,District Public Grievance Cell,At-Collectorate,Mohanpur
Road,Samastipur
11.Smt.Pintu Kumari,W/O-Late Vijay Kumar Jha,Resident of At+PO-Bambaiya Harlal,Via-
Dalsingsarai,P.S-Dalsingsarai,Dt-Samastipur
12.Sri Pradeep Kumar Acharya,TGT English/House Master of Udaygiri B hostel, Jawahar
Navodaya Vidyalaya,Birauli,Samastipur
13.Sri Ghanshyam Choudhary,PGT Maths/House Master of Arawali A hostel, Jawahar
Navodaya Vidyalaya,Birauli,Samastipur
14.Sri Balendu Prasad Singh,TGT Maths/ House Master of Arawali B hostel, Jawahar
Navodaya Vidyalaya,Birauli,Samastipur
15.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Dalsingsarai,Dt-Samastipur—————————————–
-…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Please see my matter in short….

The petitioner was the student of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Birauli, Samastipur.When
he was in class Tenth,one boy of class Sixth namely Sanjeev Suman became his friend. The
petitioner was admitted in class Eleventh on 6.7.2011 in science against his desire of opting
Humanities due to a philosophical article titled:-VISION 2047 by the respondent No.5,the
principal by slapping the condition of expulsion in the case of opting Humanities .The
petitioner was thinking and working against corruption existing in the Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Birauli, Samastipur.When he entered in Eleventh,responsent No.5 started to
torture him mentally,emotionally and ideologically.In this context,he refused to allot
Humanities due to aforesaid article,he kept the petitioner trapping in unnatural offence
without justification with his friend namely Sanjeev Suman who was helpful in his project
of said philosophy.Again,the respondent principal imposed the condition of expulsion in
the case of living in tension on 23.8.2011.So the petitioner became bound to ran away
from the school on 24.8.2011 and made complain against the respondent No.5 to the
respondent No.2,Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,Headquarter on 25.8.2011.After complaining
against respondent No.5,the said respondent trapped the petitioner on 14.9.2011 in
unnatural offence with said boy namely Sanjeev Suman and expelled but objection was
not proved.Again,when the father of petitioner went to school to issue SLC(School
Leaving Certificate) on 28.9.2011 as the respondent principal expelled the petitioner,the
respondent No.5 compelled the father of petitioner to submit application for SLC by saying
that SLC would be issued only when the father of petitioner would submit application and
even If the father of petitioner would not submit application,the respondent No.5 would
not keep the petitioner in school.So the father of petitioner became bound to submit
application under such circumstances.
The petitioner made complain to the Bihar Human Rights Commissioner as well as
National Human Rights Commission against ill behaviour of the respondent principal,
whereupon the National Human Rights Commission forwarded the matter to the
Respondent No 1, Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource and Development for appropriate
necessary action and disposed the same. The Respondent No.1,The Secretary,Ministry
of Human Resource and Development forwarded the matter to the respondent No.2,the
Commissioner,Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and no action is taken at ministry level.Navodaya
Vidyalaya Samiti,Headquarter appointed an Assistant Commissioner of the Respondent
No.3,Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,Regional Office, Patna namely Sri AK Tiwari to enquire
into the matter and Sri AK Tiwari submitted report without enquiring the petitioner only
enquiring the accused and his sides and the Headquarter accepted the one-sided report
submitted by AK Tiwari and disposed of the matter.
The respondent Bihar Human Rights Commission enquired
into the matter through the principal of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya .After obtaining the enquiry report, the matter was heard and disposed of vide order dt.31.10.2012 with an observation:-

“On perusal of the documents it appears to the commission that matter involves many disputed questions and even if the applicant’s version that he was expelled from the school is assumed to be true,the impugned action against the applicant would appear to be in the nature of disciplinary measure.The commission is not inclined to make any kind of intervention in the matter;though erroneously.’’

But,The respondent principal submitted distorted report to the Bihar Human Rights
Commission by manufacturing many forge papers in back date against the petitioner
after his approaching to the commission.The respondent principal utilized under pressure
the boy namely Sanjeev Suman,his mother Pintu Kumari,two teachers namely Pradeep
Kumar Acharya and Ghanshyam Choudhary to forge documents against the petitioner and
principal managed to some officers of Collectorate,Samastipur to do forge complain against
the petitioner to the District Magistrate,Samastipur.Forge Paper is also prepared against the
petitioner addressed to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Dalsingsarai,Dt-Samastipur in back
date after his approaching to the commission.

Now SDO has ordered to lodge FIR on 13.9.2012 and same day complaint was filed before SDO but case was already going on in Bihar Human Rights Commission on 13.9.2012 so he had even no right to receive complaint.This is said that complaint was filed before SDO in Sept 2011,not 2012 and a copy of complaint is submitted before Bihar Human Rights Commission.But SDO has said that this is filed on 2012.So forge papers have been submitted before the commission.

Please see error in the order of Bihar Human Rights Commission passed by Justice SN Jha……….

the impugned order dt.31.10.2012 is otherwise bad in law and wrong on
facts.eg-This is said that if this is assumed that the petitioner was expelled,the impugned
action against the applicant would appear to be in the nature of disciplinary measure.If the
petitioner was expelled,then no application for SLC should be submitted.But application
is submitted and respondent principal is saying on the basis of this application that the
petitioner was not expelled.This proves, forcibly application was taken by respondent No.5
to hide his crime that he trapped the petitioner forcibly and expelled.So if such is done by
respondent No.5,this means the petitioner was right .This means,the petitioner was being
trapped forcibly. This means,forge papers have been manufactured against the petitioner
after his approaching to the commission.This is said in the order dt.31.10.2012 that the
petitioner has submitted that the petitioner’s father was forced to write application and
the school management has manufactured documents against him after the approaching of
the petitioner to the commission and the matter involves many disputed questions.But this
is not clarified whether the father of the petitioner was forced or not, whether forge papers
have been manufactured or not, what disputed questions the matter involves.Without
going through clarification,this is said that if the applicant was expelled from the school,this
would be disciplinary action.But if this would be proved that the father of petitioner was
forced to submit application,forge papers have been manufactured etc then this would
be cleared that the petitioner has been victimized by the ill behaviour of the respondent
principal.So the said order is totally error.There is no discussion of the other allegations
made against respondent No.5 in the said order like refusing to allot humanities due to
an article,imposing condition of expulsion in the case of living in tension, mistreatment
by respondent No.5 against the petitioner on the date of trapping by principal etc.So the
impugned order is totally error.

Please go through below explanation to see how all papers are forge and there is only conspiracy………

(i) The reply of Awamanana Notice of dated:-17.7.2011 ,sent to the District
Magistrate,Samastipur,who is respondent No. 8, on the petitioner’s notice of
dated 7.6.2011, clearly proves that the complaint against the petitioner is forge
as the reply doesn’t come according to the noted points of the notice.Response
is not sent according to the noted points that the DM referred that complaint
against the petitioner after 6 months having no action taken which is humiliation
of petitioner’s right to life because if he would refer immediately or action
would be taken if he referred after 6 months,there would be solution in
petitioner’s favour due to medical test under section 164 A of CrPC and
opportunity to keep the favour.This proves,if complaint is done after 6 months
having no action taken,this was wrong and conspiracy.This is replied in response
of the contempt notice that the information is taken of the matter from the
respondent principal in respect of the contempt notice.This means,no any
document was available before against the petitioner in DM office so when
the petitioner sent the DM this notice,he said principal to inform about the
matter.In other words,principal has manufactured forge documents addressed to
DM.Moreover,this is said that action is taken against the petitioner.This proves
that principal expelled the petitioner.
The RTI response of DM office of dated:- 08/10/2012 in response of petitioner’s
RTI application of dated:-23.8.2012 clearly proves the fixing between principal
and some officers of Collectorate,Samastipur like The Officer on Special Duty
of Zila Gopniya Prasakha,who is respondent No.9 and The officer Incharge of
District Public Grievance Cell,who is respondent No.10 as the The Officer on
Special Duty of Zila Gopniya Prasakha has not supplied documents by referring
that the principal has already supplied and responsing the some questions that
information sought is not information as per 2(F) of RTI Act,2005 as the principal
replied same in response of the RTI application of dated:-23.8.2012 and his
response of dated:-10.9.2012. The Officer Incharge of District Public Grievance
Cell has issued forge order of dated:-29.9.2011 to the principal in respect of
the complaint of the mother of Sanjeev.The petitioner is able to understand the
conspiracy of these people.Now in the RTI Application of dated:-4.10.2012 the
petitioner has demanded from DM office the complaint of that mother,report
submitted by principal in regard to complaint of that mother and the petitioner
was thinking that this will be said again that information has already been
provided by the principal but no reply came so again the petitioner has filed
first appeal on 20.12.2012.The petitioner has demanded the document which
prove action taken and the petitioner was thinking that this will be said-Not
Available but no reply came.The petitioner has asked what action is taken in
regard to this complaint and the petitioner was thinking that this will be said
that no action was requested as principal said in his RTI response of dated:-
8.10.2012 but no reply came.This proves,all documents are forge,have been
manufactured by principal under the co-operation of some officers of DM office
or principal himself manufactured but DM office is hiding the conspiracy of
principal so no reply came by the DM office[by The Officer Incharge of District
Public Grievance Cell who signed on order of dated:-29.9.2011] to not go more
alongwith the conspiracy of principal by supplying forge documents or replying
what the petitioner has expected above in response of the questions of this RTI
application.
Overall,this is said by the respondent No.9 and respondent No.5 in response
of the questions of the petitioner,what action is taken by the principal against
the petitioner,what the father of the petitioner accepted,how action taken
against the petitioner was right without medical test and without his favour,how
this can be said only on the basis of the report submitted by the principal that
action taken against the petitioner is right and this is accepted by the father of
the petitioner etc that Information sought is not information as per 2(F) of RTI
Act,2005.This proves,if action is taken against petitioner,then this was wrong as
the respondent No.9 and respondent No.5 replied that Information sought is not
information as per 2(F) of RTI Act,2005.
They all have helped to protect principal by helping in manufacturing documents against the
petitioner and hiding this conspiracy.
If the response of Awamanana Notice sent under the direction of the respondent No.8,the
District Magistrate or if the order of 29.9.2011 is issued under the direction of the District
Magistrate or if he is known about the matter anyhow,then he is also involved in this
forgery and conspiracy.
A copy of the contempt Notice(Awamanana Notice) and response on that notice,RTI
application of dated 23.8.2012 sent to the collectorate and response of that,RTI application
of dated:-23.8.2011 sent to respondent No.5 and response on that and RTI application of
dated:-4.10.2012 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-7 series to this petition.
(ii)The complaint of Master Sanjeev Suman done to the principal is of dated:-22.9.2011
as this is filed as the enclosure of complaint of Sh.PK Acharya of dated:-22.9.2011.As PK
Acharya(Pradeep Kumar Acharya) has underlined some words and signed in the complaint
and this is said that ‘’through the housemaster’’but principal has signed on 20.9.2011.This
is written by the brother of Sanjeev namely Sanjeet Kashyap and no sign of Sanjeev is
present.Overall,this is of after complaining against principal to his headquarter and after 6
months.
(iii)The complaint of Smt.Pintu Kumari,the mother of Sanjeev,done to the District
Magistrate,Samastipur is done on 23.9.2011 but applicant has signed on 23.8.2011-one
month before.The complaint is sealed on 26.9.2011 instead of 23.9.2011.Overall,this is
filed after complaining against principal to his headquarter and after 6 months.
In the order of DM office of dated:-29.9.2011,principal has written that a report is
submitted to DM office on the petitioner’s withdrawal by his parents request.Principal
has sent petitioner this report through RTI which is of dated 19.10.2011 but in the order of
29.9.2011,principal has signed on 18.9.2011.In the report of dated:- 19.10.2011,principal
has written Sanjeet Kashyap in place of Sanjeev Suman.
A copy of the order dated:-29.9.2011 and report dated:-19.10.2011 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure-8 series to this petition.
(iv) The complaint of Smt.Pintu Kumari,the mother of Sanjeev,done to the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,Dalsingsarai,Samastipur is signed by applicant Smt.Pintu Kumari on 23.9.2011
but one official has signed on 21.9.2011.No seal,date and case No is present in this
complaint,which is also submitted before the Bihar Human Rights Commission by the
respondent No.5,principal.Overall,this is filed after complaining against principal to his
headquarter and after 6 months.Now on 16 Jan 2013,In response of petitioner’s RTI
application of dated:-20.12.2012,respondent No.15,the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,Dalsingsarai,Dt-Samastipur has replied that complaint(Application No.1084/
2012) is filed against the petitioner before him on 13.9.2012,which is approx one year later
of 23.9.2011 and taken up for the hearing on the same day.But the complaint which is said
to filed before Respondent No.15 which is submitted by the respondent No.5 before Bihar
Human Rights Commission also,the applicant Smt. Pintu Kumari who is respondent No.11
has signed on 23.9.2011 and typist has written 21.9.2011 and one official has signed on
21.9.2011.So according to such date and signs available on the said complaint,this can be
said that the complaint is filed before respondent No.15 on 23.9.2011,not on 13.9.2012.But
respondent No.15 has said that this is filed on 13.9.2012.How this happened?This proves,no
complaint was filed on 23.9.2011 but to show gravity of situation and present the petitioner
wrong externally, forge paper of dt.23.9.2011 addressed to Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,Dalsingsarai is manufactured by the respondent No.5 and submitted before
Bihar Human Rights Commission. In this RTI response,this has been said that one copy of
complaint is sent to the Police Inspector,Dalsingsarai and Deputy Superintendent of
Police,Dalsingsarai. If this complaint is filed on 13.9.2012,then also filed after petitioner’s
approaching to the Human Rights Commission on 19.12.2011 and proceedings going on in
the Human Rights Commission.What is the meaning of filing such complaint when
proceedings is already going on in the Human Rights Commission? So the complaint filed
before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate must be quashed and if FIR is lodged against the
petitioner,must be removed as this is bad in law.If this is said by respondent No.15 or
respondent No.11 that the complaint is filed twice on 13.9.2012 because the complaint has
been filed already on 23.9.2011 then why complaint is filed twice.Why no action is taken
when complaint is filed first on 23.9.2011.This proves,complaint of dt.23.9.2011 was filed in
back date after petitioner’s approaching to the commission under managing with
respondent No.15,Sub-Divisional Magistrate so no action could be taken due to filing in back
date but now complaint is again filed in actual date so a copy of complaint is sent to the
Police Inspector,Dalsingsarai and Sub-Divisional Police Officer,Dalsingsarai in order to show
action.But the question remains constant why a copy of complaint is not sent to the Police
Inspector,Dalsingsarai and Sub-Divisional Police Officer,Dalsingsarai when this is filed first
time.This proves,the complaint of first time is filed in back date.In fact,there is no need to
file complaint again according to rule.Application No. is provided to an applicant and an
applicant can say/press the officers to take action in respect of his/her Application No.So
only complaint can be filed twice when this is filed first in back date. Even in regard to
complaint of dt.13.9.2012,a copy of complaint is sent to Police Inspector and Deputy
Superintendent of Police but no action against the petitioner is taken still.This
proves,everything has been managed by respondent No.5,the principal with respondent
No.15 and all others to only show the petitioner’s wrong and create surplus point in the
favour of respondent principal.One question is also here that if complaint is filed first time
on 23.9.2011 then why this is filed again on 13.9.2012,after a long gap.The applicant could
go to enquire about the complaint or file again before 19 Dec 2011 also when no complaint
was filed before the commission.Approx 3 months left,the applicant didn’t go to file
complaint again and went to file again on 13.9.2012.In fact,no complaint was lodged before
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dalsingsarai till 19 Dec 2011 because first time complaint is
lodged in back date.So after lodging complaint in back date of first time after 19 Dec 2011
but showing before of 28 Sept 2011,again complaint is lodged on 13.9.2012 so that action
could be taken in regard to the complaint because no action was taken on first time
complaint due to being forge as this was shown in back date.
If the complaint is filed first time on 13.9.2012 and no complaint is filed before as on
23.9.2011,then this is proved that lodging complaint to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is
only a conspiracy of principal because respondent principal has already submitted forge
complaint of 23.9.2011 before Human Rights Commission and no complaint was filed in
real(also in back date) so to protect himself and show complaint against the petitioner
anyway ,the complaint is filed before Sub-Divisional Magistrate.If this complaint is filed first
time on 13.9.2012,then this can be said that this is filed after lodging complaint against the
respondent principal to the Human Rights Commission by the petitioner. So the respondent
principal forced Smt.Pintu Kumari to lodge case against the petitioner as a revenge because
the petitioner filed complaint against principal before the commission.
How complaint is received by the SDM after 18 months and during case going on in Bihar
Human Rights Commission?How the SDM said SDPO and Police Inspector to lodge FIR after
18 months and during case going on in Bihar Human Rights Commission?He has misutilized
his power to protect the respondent principal.
A copy of RTI application of dated:-20.12.2012 and its response is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure-9 to this petition.
(v). The complaint of Smt.Pintu Kumari,the mother of Sanjeev,done to the principal of
dated:-22.8.2011 is of after 5 months and after lodging email complaint to the regional
office of dated:-17.8.2011 and no sign of principal is present.
(vi).The complaint of PK Acharya done to the principal of dated:-22.9.2011 is of after
complaining against principal to his headquarter and after 6 months and no sign of principal
is present.
(vii).The complaint of GS (Ghan Shyam)Chaudhary done to the principal regarding the
daily behaviour is of 24.8.2011-on the day of petitioner’s absconding and after of 5
months.Respondent Principal was not present on the day till 11 P:M but he has signed on
the complaint.
(viii) No sign of planted victim boy namely Sanjeev Suman is present in the application of
Respondent no.11 filed before respondent No.5 of dated:-6.7.2011 for house changing.
(ix)The planted victim namely Sanjeev Suman Complained on 22.9.2011 but the mother of
Sanjeev complained to principal on 22.8.2011 and 6.7.2011 on the basis of the statement
of her son.How she complained before,where no statement was present of her son?The
complaint to Sub-Divisional Magistrate (same complaint is filed to the District Magistrate)
had been prepared on 21.9.2011 as typist has written the said date and one official has
signed on the said date.But the child complained on 22.9.2011.How the complaint to Sub-
Divisional Magistrate (same complaint is filed to the District Magistrate) had been prepared
before ,where no statement was present of her son?How the complaints done to Sub-
Divisional Magistrate and District Magistrate are prepared before the complaining of the
child to the principal of dated:-22.9.2011?
(x)That child said nothing against the petitioner in his written statement of dated:-
22.9.2011 which can prove unnatural offence.Not a single student has claimed the
petitioner and presented as an eye-witness.Onlysleepings are narrated as the other
students’s version.Then how,the mother of child went to complain baselessly?In the
complaint of Respondent 11 and respondent 12,whatever is said on the basis of the
statements of child is not said in the statements of the child of dt.22.9.2011.
(Xi)The complaints of respondent 11 done to Sub-Divisional Magistrate and District
Magistrate are totally different from her complaint done to the principal. How this
happened?
(Xii) There are many contradictory statements in a particular complaint.One line of one
complaint crosses the other lines of the same complaint.Also,the lines of that complaint,
don’t match to all others complaints/reports filed in the same matter.
(Xiii)If this is assumed that the petitioner was expelled then this is done also after
complaining against principal and after 6 months.The petitioner stated before the
commission that he was expelled after 6 months and after complaining against principal to
his headquarter.So how this was disciplinary action?If the respondent No.5 didn’t expell
the petitioner,then also he trapped the petitioner in that wrong allegation of unnatural
offence after complaining against the respondent No.5 because mostly papers have been
manufactured in the date of after complaining against principal and in this way,bounded a
father to take SLC by taking complain from the child,his housemaster namely PK Acharya
and forcing his mother to complain to District Magistrate,Samastipur and Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,Dalsingsarai,Dt-Samastipur.
(xiv).There were many complaints against the petitioner including complaints to DM and
SDM but not a single action was taken against him [as principal wrote in his report] .So
this was evident that these are manufactured when the petitioner complained against
respondent principal to the commission because TC had been issued to the petitioner that
time and the petitioner was no more in school so no action was taken.
(XV)This point may be noted as the commission said that if this is assumed that petitioner
was expelled then this would appear to be in the nature of disciplinary measure that
the petitioner was expelled on 14 Sept 2011[which he has written in his complaint of
dated:-19.12.2011 done to the commission ] but complaints of that mother to SDM and
DM are of dated:-23.9.2011 ,that child and PK Acharya are of dated:-22.9.2011.By the
phone recordings of principal,statements of students of the school,evidence through
media,statements of students,emails sent to the principal,call details record etc,this is
evident that the petitioner was expelled on 14 Sept 2011.
(xvi)The principal has accepted in his RTI response of 8.10.2012 that he has received petitioner’s email article of VISION 2047.This proves,he refused to allot petitioner humanities due to this article because he has said before Human Rights Commission and an Assisstant Commissioner, who was enquiry officer, that he has not received such article.
(XVii)The said principal has accepted in this RTI response that he has received an email article related to philosophical reason of living with the boy with whom the petitioner was trapped.This proves,without considering his favour and evidence,the petitioner was trapped.
(xviii)In this RTI response,the principal has accepted that he has received petitioner’s email article sent before expulsion by requesting him to not expell and some articles sent after expulsion requesting him to take back his decision and stating his decision wrong.This proves,the principal expelled the petitioner as he is saying,he didn’t expell him.This proves,he forced the petitioner’s father to write application for SLC as he is saying that the petitioner’s father himself gave application.This also proves that the principal has forged documents against him in back date after my approaching to Human Rights Commission.
(xix)There are more than 10 voice clips of principal.In one voice clips,this is evident that he is going to expell the petitioner because the petitioner have complained against him.In remaining voice clips,this is evidents that he has forged documents against the petitioner in back date after his approaching to Human Rights Commission and he has done wrong.
(xx)More than 90 students,including more than 50 eye-witnesses (students of JNV Samastipur who were present in school that time ) have supported the petitioner .This proves,the petitioner is right and his accused are wrong.

(xxi)There is need to trace many public registar,which can clear all actual happenings.SMS detail record/call detail record/fax detail record and email detail record may prove helpful to give evidences in the petitioner’s support.
(xxii)The said mother has not replied contempt notice sent twice.This proves,if complaint is done to the DM and SDM against the petitioner after 6 months,having no action taken,this was conspiracy and wrong.
(xxiii)The petitioner has a voice clip of said boy supporting the petitioner and opposing those who tortured.Unfortunately,this was deleted.But this can be traced from the hard drive of the concerned mobile which the petitioner has.
(xxiv)Media has given the petitioner evidence.As principal accepted before the editor and his team of Hindustan Muzaffarpur that he trapped the petitioner and expelled on the basis of the written complaint of the said mother done to the principal.This proves,firstly principal expelled and then forced the petitioner’s father to write application to remove evidence.This also proves,no more complaint was done against the petitioner to the principal like of Said boy,2 teachers and complaints of said mother to the DM and SDM as there was only coomplaint of the said mother and only to principal.
(xxv)There must be medical examination of victim and accused under section 164 A of CrPC and Guidelines of National Human Rights Commission.

Thanking You

Yours
Rahul Kumar
Class -12
CM College Darbhanga
9135195932