ORDER Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State. 2. Petitioner is the informant seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 24th January, 2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 289 of 2012, whereby opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted for the charge under Section 315 of Indian Penal Code in connection with Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 119 of 2011, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 2650 of 2011. 3. As per the case of the informant, his sister, Asha Kumari was taken by one A.N.M, Sunaina Kumari for delivery of child at Prasad Seva Sadan Clinic and admitted on 26th September, 2011 at 9.30 A.M. after depositing Rs. 1500/in the Nursing Home. When the condition of patient started deteriorating then the informant wanted to take her outside for better treatment, but she was assured that she would undergo normal delivery. Thereafter opposite party no. 2 and one Nurse, Sangita Kumari informed the informant that major operation may have to be performed and asked for Rs. 20,000/to be deposited for calling Doctor from Hazaribag. The request for discharge by the informant was declined and they in fact assaulted the informant. Thereafter, he took her sister to nearby Nurse Manju Devi. It was detected after test that the date of delivery was after two days but due to negligence, injection was given which caused the death of foetus. After hectic effort, life of the sister of informant could be saved. The patient during the period of consciousness had also disclosed that she was assaulted by Nurse, Sangita Kumari. 4. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against the opposite party no. 2 only. On behalf of prosecution 8 witnesses were examined, namely, P.W. 1Ajay Kumar being the informant. P.W. 2, Asha Kumari victim of the case. P.W. 3 Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, he was declared hostile. P.W. 4, Sunaina Kumari, A.N.M, who was also declared hostile. P.W. 5, Kunti Kumari, grand mother of the victim. P.W. 6 Kamshwar @ Kaleshwar, an independent witness. P.W. 7 Jagdish Rana, who was also declared hostile. P.W.8Shyam Sunder Mishra, Investigating Officer. 5. Admittedly, no documentary evidence of admission and treatment such as prescription, purchase of drugs during her stay in Prasad Seva Sadan Clinic were adduced during the course of trial by the prosecution. P.W. 6 Kamshwar @ Kaleshwar, an independent witness. P.W. 7 Jagdish Rana, who was also declared hostile. P.W.8Shyam Sunder Mishra, Investigating Officer. 5. Admittedly, no documentary evidence of admission and treatment such as prescription, purchase of drugs during her stay in Prasad Seva Sadan Clinic were adduced during the course of trial by the prosecution. Learned Trial Court after consideration of oral and other documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and upon forensic analysis of the ingredients of Section 315 of Indian Penal Code, came to a finding that the prosecution had failed to produce any material evidence against the accused/opposite party no. 2 herein to bring home the charge beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused/opposite party no. 2 was acquitted. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, in support of challenge to the impugned judgment, relied upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the Investigating Officer P.W.8. The evidences are admittedly all oral. Even the deposition of Investigating Officer, P.W. 8 does not show any material evidence on the admission of the sister of the informant, Asha Kumari in the Prasad Seva Sadan Clinic/Nursing Home nor any evidence of treatment as such. He has also deposed that Prasad Nursing Home had no license for accepting the delivery cases. He has also deposed that during the course of investigation there has been no other instance of delivery being found in the said Nursing Home. No other records maintained in the Nursing Home showing regular intake of delivery cases and such treatment, were either produced to substantiate that the said Prasad Nursing Home was regularly engaged in entertaining delivery cases without license. 7. Learned trial court also came to a finding that even as per the admission of the prosecution witnesses the lady was taken to the house of one Manju Devi where dead foetus was born. Learned Trial Court therefore came to a considered finding that the prosecution had failed to bring home charge under Section 315 of the Indian Penal Code. Ingredient of Section 315 of Indian Penal Code are quoted hereunder: "315. Learned Trial Court therefore came to a considered finding that the prosecution had failed to bring home charge under Section 315 of the Indian Penal Code. Ingredient of Section 315 of Indian Penal Code are quoted hereunder: "315. Act done with intent to prevent child being born alive or to cause it to die after birth Whoever before the birth of any child does any act with the intention of thereby preventing that child from being born alive or causing it to die after its birth, and does by such act prevent that child from being born alive, or causes it to die after its birth, shall, if such act be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both." 8. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of leave to appeal also on the same grounds. 9. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment, we are satisfied that no grounds are made out to allow leave to appeal to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.