JUDGMENT

Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. - Though the respondent nos. 2 to 4 have given full description in the application, it would be inappropriate to disclose their identity in view of the statutory provisions prescribed under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act of 2015'). They are being referred to in the cause title as X 1, X 2 and X3 respectively.

2. Registry while uploading the order on the website shall also ensure that the cause title is reflected in similar manner.

3. By the present appeal, preferred under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'CrPC'), the appellant has challenged the final order dated 15th February, 2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Biharsharif, Nalanda (for short 'the Board') in JJB Case No. 97 of 2019 arising out of Laheri P.S. Case No. 62 of 2019.

4. After conducting inquiry, by the aforesaid order dated 15th February, 2021, the Board concluded that the prosecution successfully proved the offecnes punishable under Sections 302/34, 120B and 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') against the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and directed them to be kept in a Special Home for a period of three years for each of the offences under Sections 302, 120B and 379/411 of the IPC. However, the Board further directed that the sentence awarded for each of the offences shall run concurrently and respondent nos. 2 to 4 shall be kept in Special Home for a total period not exceeding three years. The Board also directed that the period spent by respondent nos. 2 to 4 earlier in Observation Home shall be commuted.

5. The appellant, herein, was the complainant in Laheri P.S. Case No. 62 of 2019. In his fardbeyan, he stated that on 8th February, 2019, at about 10 p.m., his brother Jitendra Kumar had gone out of his house telling that he will come back soon. But, when he did not return till 1 a.m. on 9th February, 2019, he and his family members went out to enquire his whereabouts. Since no clue of his brother could be found, they came back to their house. In the morning, two boys of the locality came and informed that his brother was badly assaulted and is lying in an injured condition on the flyover. On this information, when his family members went to the flyover, they came to know that the police had already taken his brother to Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif. When they reached at the Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif, looking at his condition, the doctor advised that the injured should immediately be taken to PMCH, Patna for better treatment. He further stated that when they reached to PMCH, Patna on 9th February, 2019 at 9.30 a.m., the doctor, who examined his brother declared him brought dead.

6. During investigation, on 14th February, 2019, the respondent nos. 2 to 4 were arrested and they were produced before the Board.

7. On inquiry, the age of respondent nos. 2 to 4 was determined to be 14 years and two months, 15 years and 10 months and 16 years and 9 months respectively on the date of commission of the offence by the Board. Thus, they all were declared juvenile in conflict with law.

8. One of the offences, namely, the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, under which the case was registered comes within the definition of heinous offence as defined under the Act of 2015 and the age of respondent no. 4 was found to be above 16 years and below 18 years of age. However, the Board did not find his case fit for trial as an adult. Hence, his case was not referred to the Children's Court.

9. After completion of the inquiry, culpability of respondent nos. 2 to 4 was found proved. Accordingly, the Board, vide impugned order dated 15th February, 2021 passed under Section 18 of the Act of 2015 directed the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to be kept in a Special Home for a period not exceeding three years.

10. Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order impugned passed by the Board is not sustainabl