“ No doubt, in the written statement, a plea was taken up by the defendant, that the pronote and receipt were forged, false and fabricated document. He further stated that his signatures were obtained by coercive means, when two/three Police men were present there. In case the signatures and thumb impressions of the defendant, on pronote, Ex.P1, and receipt Ex.P2, were obtained by means of coercive measures in the presence of the police men, then he could file a complaint before the Higher Police Authorities or Administrative Authorities, in that respect, he could also file a complaint against the plaintiff, mentioning therein, the mode and manner, in which the signatures were obtained. He however, did not adopt any such method. Why he slept over this matter, for such a long time is unknown in his examination-in-chief, while appearing as DW2, he did not state even a single word, that his signatures were obtained on pronote, Ex.P1 and receipt, Ex.P2, by coercive means, when the police officials were present there,. The forgery or the fraud set up by a party, are required to be proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a civil as well as in criminal case. In the instant case, the plea of forgery and fabrication, set up by the defendant, in the written statement has not been proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, without any cogent and convincing evidence. The submission of the counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.”
