SMT BHAGWAN DEVI & ANR v. STATE

11. In the appeal memorandum filed by A[1], it is alleged that the trial court erred in holding A[1] guilty despite the prosecution having failed to prove the marriage alleged to have CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters been solemnized on 22.11.2006 or that any deceit was practiced upon PW[1]. The alleged Arya Samaj marriage has not been proved in accordance with law and that the evidence on record does not establish that A[1] induced PW[1] by concealing his marital status. It is further alleged that the conviction under Sections 494, 495, 496 and 376 IPC is unsustainable in the absence of proof of a valid marriage, deception, or lack of consent.

11.1. The prosecution case suffers from grave and material contradictions, particularly between the testimony of PW[1] and PW[4], her father. The first complaint of PW[4], i.e., Exhibit PW-4/A itself demonstrates that PW[1] was already aware of the marital status of A[1], thereby demolishing the foundation of the prosecution case. There are serious inconsistencies regarding the dates, manner, and circumstances of the alleged abandonment and disclosure, rendering the testimony of the prosecution witnesses unreliable and unsafe for sustaining a conviction.

11.2. The trial court failed to appreciate that no evidence had been led to establish any criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, either against A[1] or the other accused. The conviction is based on conjectures and surmises, without any proof of meeting of minds or overt acts. The defence evidence, including the testimony regarding the panchayat meeting held on 13.05.2007, was not properly considered, and undue weight was given to the uncorroborated version of PW[1]. On these grounds, it is alleged that the conviction of A[1] is liable to be set aside.

12. In the appeal memorandum filed by A[2], it is alleged that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 376 IPC in the complete absence of any evidence establishing conspiracy, instigation, or active participation on his part. The appellant is the father of A[1] and that there is neither oral nor documentary evidence to show any meeting of minds or overt act attributable to CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters him in relation to the alleged sexual offence. The conviction rests purely on presumption and is unsustainable in law.

12.1. Even as per the prosecution case and the testimony of PW[1], the only allegation against A[2] is that here quested PW[1] to reside with A[1] in a rented accommodation instead of living in the parental house. Such an allegation, even if taken at face value, does not constitute abetment or conspiracy of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The trial court acquitted A[2] of the charges under Sections 494, 495 and 496 IPC, thereby acknowledging the absence of intention or knowledge on his part, which equally negates any allegation of conspiracy.

13. It was submitted by the learned counsel for A[4] that the trial court gravely erred in convicting A[4] in the absence of any material to establish conspiracy or participation on his part. It was contended that as per the prosecution case itself, the alleged marriage between PW[1] and A[1] took place on 22.11.2006, after which PW[1] returned to her parental home. No evidence, oral or CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters documentary, has been adduced to show any meeting of minds or overt act on the part of A[4] in relation to the alleged offences. The conviction of A[4] with the aid of Section 120B IPC was, therefore, submitted to be unsustainable.

13.1. It was further contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the material contradictions between the testimony of PW[1] and her father (PW-4). Particular reliance was placed on the complaint dated 14.05.2007 (Exhibit PW-4/A), wherein PW-4 stated that till 13.05.2007 PW[1] was residing with him and that on the night of 13.05.2007 she left the house on the asking of A[1] and his father and was thereafter taken to Sultan Puri Police Station, from where A[1] took her along with him. It was contended that the said version is wholly inconsistent with the prosecution story relating to the alleged incident of abandonment and does not attribute any role to A[4].

13.2. The learned counsel lastly submitted that there is a serious inconsistency regarding the alleged disclosure by A[1] of his CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters prior marriage. While PW-1 stated that such disclosure was made on 14.05.2007, PW-4 stated that the disclosure was made on 15.05.2007. Despite this, Exhibit PW-4/A complaint was admittedly lodged on 14.05.2007, i.e., prior to the alleged date of knowledge as per PW-4. It was submitted that this contradiction strikes at the root of the prosecution case and clearly establishes that the appellant/A[4] has been falsely implicated.

14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the victim submitted that PW[1] has been consistent with regard to the identity of A[4]. It was argued that both in the complaint as well as in her testimony before the trial court, PW[1] has consistently named A[4], and there is no variation or ambiguity in that regard.

15. The learned prosecutor supported the said submission and contended that during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., A[4] did not offer any explanation to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, except stating that he was a friend of A[1]. It was argued that it was incumbent upon A[4], while CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters answering the questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to state that he had no knowledge of the marital status of A[1] or that he was unaware that A[1] was already married. The absence of such an explanation, according to the learned APP, is a circumstance which goes against A[4].

16. Heard both sides and perused the records.

17. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed against the appellants/accused persons by the trial court are sustainable or not.

18. I shall briefly refer to the evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of the case. The gist of the case of PW[1] in Ext. PW1/A FIS, is as follows:- In the month of January 2002, A[1] had enticed and misled PW[1] and taken her away, in relation to which PW[4], her father, had lodged an FIR alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 363 IPC at Sultan Puri Police Station, and criminal proceedings arising therefrom were pending CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters before the competent court. In the said incident, after about a week, A[1] had brought her back to her parental home and thereafter met her repeatedly, telling her that she should marry him as it had become known to everyone that she had gone away with him, assuring her that he was ready to marry her but insisting that she should withdraw the pending criminal case against him. On 22.11.2006, A[1] took her to a temple and married her by representing that he was unmarried, which representation she believed to be true. Thereafter, on 13.05.2007, A[1] took her from her parental house, at which time A[2] had informed her that a room had been arranged for them at Aman Vihar. A[1], A[2], A[3], and A[4] then together took her to a room situated at AI-125, Aman Vihar, Delhi, and left her there with A[1].A[1] established physical relations with her. On the next day, A[1] and A[4] took her back to her parental home at Rohini on the false pretext that PW[4] was ill, after which A[1] disclosed that he was already married and further told her that he had married her only to save himself from the criminal case CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters pending against him. PW[1] has further stated that had she been aware of the said fact, she would neither have married A[1] nor consented to any physical relationship with him, and further that A[1] to A[4] had acted in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy to deceive her into marrying A[1] in order to enable A[1] to escape legal consequences. PW[1] further stated that A[1], despite being already married, had deliberately concealed the said fact, married her by deception, and established physical relations with her without her free and informed consent, and that her consent had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. It is also stated that while she was staying in the room at Aman Vihar, A[1] had dishonestly taken away the gold chain she was wearing, remarking, “What will you do with this?”, and that the same had not been returned to her till date. She accordingly prayed that strict legal action be taken against A[1], A[2], A[3], and A[4] in accordance with law.

19. In the testimony of PW[1] before the trial court, she has reiterated her case as stated in the FIS. PW[1] further deposed that CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters she tried to lodge a complaint on 15.05.2007, but the police officials, disputing the jurisdiction and on one pretext or the other, did not lodge the complaint and ultimately lodged the complaint on 07.06.2007. At the time of performing the marriage in Arya Samaj Mandir on 22.11.2006, she was made to sign an affidavit mentioning that she was unmarried at that time. She stood by her case, in the cross examination also.

20. PW[2], deposed that he knew A[2] who was residing in C- 9, Sultan Puri for the last 10-12 years. In the year 2009, A[1] and his wife, whose name he does not know, came to him and on their request he arranged a room for rent in the house of one Jaswant Singh. The house in which a room was taken for A[1] and his wife was bearing No. A1/136, Aman Vihar belonged to Jaswant Singh and the same was vacant. PW[2] deposed that he does not know anything more about the case and that A[1] and his wife lived only for about 15 days in that rented room and thereafter had left the room and gone back to their house. At this juncture, the prosecutor CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters sought the permission of the trial court to “cross-examine” PW[2] on the ground that he was resiling from his previous statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Permission was granted by the trial court and on further examination by the prosecutor, PW[2] denied having stated to the police that A[1] and his wife had come to his house along with A[2] and A[3] asking for a room on rent. He denied having stated that he had the key of the house bearing No. A1/125 Aman Vihar which belonged to his friend and that he arranged it on rent for A[2]. He denied having stated to the police that on the next day he came to know that the girl who came along with the son of A[2] was not the latter’s wife or that some quarrel had taken place between them or that he asked A[1] to vacate the premises or that on the next day A[1] and his wife vacated the said house. PW[2], in his cross-examination admitted that in the year 2009, A[1], his wife and their son lived in the rented accommodation.

21. PW[3], Head Constable, deposed that on 07.06.2007, while working as Duty Officer, he had registered FIR No. 919/07.

22. PW[4], the father of PW[1], deposed that in January 2002, his daughter was kidnapped by A[1], pursuant to which, Crime NO. 47/02, PS Sultan Puri was registered for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC. The said case was pending. Even after the registration of the said crime, A[1] continued to meet PW[1], his daughter, and in the year 2006, A[1] married PW[1] at the Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhukamp Pura clandestinely. After the marriage, though PW[1] insisted onA[1] taking her along with him, the latter kept postponing on the ground that as the earlier case was pending trial, he would take PW[1] after the said case was over.

22.1. PW[4] further deposed that on 13.05.2007, A[1], A[2], A[3] and A[4] made a phone call to PW[1] and told her that they were standing at S-Block Mangolpuri, PW[1] went to the said place and met the accused persons. Thereafter, PW[1] boarded a car and left the place with A[1]. He immediately went to the police station, Sultan Puri for reporting the matter. But the police officials did not lodge his complaint on that day. Thereafter, on the next day i.e. on 14.05.2007, he again went to the Sultan Puri Police Station and gave a written complaint addressed to the SHO, S.P. Badli Police Station, But still the police refused to lodge the report. On the next day, he went to the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police and gave a copy of the complaint vide Diary No. 5728. The copy of the complaint has been marked as Exhibit PW4/A, showing receipt by the SHO, Sultan Puri Police Station and the Diary No. given by the office of the DCP. PW[4] further deposed that on 15.05.2007 in the evening, A[1] left PW1in front of the Jail Complex, Rohini and so his daughter returned home. At the time of leaving PW[1], A[1] told her that he had married PW[1] in order to save himself from the earlier case of kidnapping. He also told her that he was already married. On the same day, he went to police station along with PW[1] for lodging the report but the police officials refused to lodge his report. He went to the police station CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters many times from 15.05.2007 and in between he also visited the office of DCP. At the intervention by the office of the DCP, his report was ultimately lodged on 07.06.2007 and the statement of PW[1] was recorded. PW[4] further deposed that his daughter told him that A[1] had raped her. In 2002, PW[1] was aged about 13 years only. According to PW[4], his daughter was born in the year 1986, but he could not recall the exact date and month.

22.2. PW[4], in the cross-examination, denied that he was related to A[1].He deposed that he was unaware that the shop of A[1] was situated at C-2 Market, Sultan Puri, Delhi. He denied visiting the shop of A[1]. He denied having taken any loans from A[1]. He denied meeting the parents of A[1] with the proposal of A1's marriage with his daughter. He denied the suggestion that when the parents of A[1] declined his proposal, he had falsely implicated A[1] in the present case. According to PW[4], A[2] was a Head Constable in Haryana Police, and so was quite influential in the area. PW[4] deposed that he was unaware as to whether on 19.01.2003 the marriage of A[1] had taken place. On 13.05.2007, when his daughter went along with A[1], he was unaware that the latter was a married man.

23. PW[5], Constable, Police Station, Sultan Puri, deposed that on 07.06.2007, she along with PW13 took PW[1] to SGM Hospital for her medical examination. After medical examination of PW[1], the doctor concerned had given two sealed pullandas and a sample seal sealed with the seal of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Govt. of NCT Delhi (SGMH) and the same was handed over to the investigation officer (IO) who took the same vide Exhibit PW5/A memo.

24. PW[6], Dr. Manoj Dhingra, SGMH, MOIC, Mangolpuri, Delhi, deposed that he is acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Sameer Pandit and Dr. Renu Gupta as he had seen them signing and writing in the course of the discharge of their official duties. Dr. Sameer Pandit and Dr. Renu Gupta had since left the hospital and their present whereabouts were not CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters known. According to him, Exhibit PW6/A is the MLC of PW[1] who was admitted in the hospital on 07.06.2007 at about 7:30 PM and was examined by Dr. Sameer Pandit, who referred her to the gynae department, where she was examined by Dr. Renu Gupta.

25. PW[8], deposed that he was doing the work of panditai at Ramroop Gali Shiv Mandir, Sabzi Mandi Ghanta Ghar, Delhi- 07 and that he had solemnized the marriage of PW[1] and A[1] on 22.11.2006. He was called by one advocate Lal to solemnize the marriage of PW[1] and A[1] at Arya Samaj Mandir. He doesnot maintain any record of the marriages solemnized by him. According to PW[8], Advocate Lal is no more. He identified A[1] in the box. In the cross-examination, PW[8] deposed that he cannot recall as to who had performed the Kanyadan ceremony.

26. PW[9], Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, deposed that on 21.05.2008, two sealed parcels were received in the office and the same were marked to him for CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters examination. He examined the exhibits biologically and gave his report, i.e., Exhibit PW9/A FSL.

27. PW13, the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 07.10.2007, he had visited the house of Jai Singh at Sultan Puri, who stated that his daughter Kamlesh had married A[1] in the year 2003 and handed over photographs of the said marriage, which have been marked as Exhibit P[1] to Exhibit P[8].

28. On behalf of the defence, DW[1] to DW[3] were examined.DW[1], deposed that on 13.05.2007 a meeting was organized at Maharishi Balmiki Mandir, A-Block, Sultan Puri. In the said meeting PW[4] and PW[1] as well as the family of Jai Singh were called. According to DW[1], PW[1] was interfering in the lives of A[1] and his wife Kamlesh. In the meeting, they tried to convince PW[4] to solemnize the marriage of his daughter, with a suitable groom. The settlement that was arrived at in the panchayat was agreed to by PW[4], who assured the panchayat that in future, neither he, nor his daughter would trouble A[1] and family. A CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters photocopy of the settlement/agreement has been marked as Exhibit DW1/DX.

28.1. DW[1], in his cross-examination, deposed that he does not know the father of A[1]. He does not know who all are the persons involved in the present crime. He does not know any of the accused persons in this case. He was called by the committee of the Mandir to attend the Panchayat. He only knows one person, a member of the Committee of the Mandir, namely, Krishan Kumar. The said Krishan Kumar is not brother of Kamlesh (the first wife of A[1]). He denied the suggestion that Kamlesh’s brother was his friend and therefore he was deposing falsely in favour of the accused. He denied knowledge of any aspect of the preset case or the marriage of A[1] to PW[1].

29. DW[2], Head constable, S.P. Badli, Police Station, produced the record of DD No. 50B dated 14.05.2007 of the said station, which is the complaint made by PW[4].A copy of the same was marked as Exhibit DW2/A.

30. DW3deposed that on 13.05.2007, a meeting was organized at Maharishi Valmiki Mandir, A-Block, Sultan Puri. In the said meeting PW[1] and PW[4] as well as Kamlesh, wife of A[1], and A[2] had takenpart.DW[3] deposed that he was unaware of the relationship between A[1] and PW[1], but as A[1] was already married to Kamlesh, they convincedPW[4] that he should marry off PW[1], his daughter to someone else and that they should not interfere in the matrimonial life of A[1] and Kamlesh. He admitted his signature in Exhibit DW1/DX Panchayat Nama.

30.1. DW[3], in his cross-examination, denied being related to either A[1] or Kamlesh. He admitted that PW[4] had not signed Exhibit DW1/DX Panchayat Nama. DW[3] stated that he is unaware of whether A[1] on 22.11.2006 had married PW[1] initially in Tis Hazari Court and thereafter, on the same day solemnized the marriage with PW[1]. He deposed that he was unaware as to whether A[1] had made any representation to PW[1] that he was unmarried. He does not know if A[1] had informed PW[1] to return to CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters her house after the marriage and that he would slowly obtain the approval of his father for the marriage and accept her as his wife. He does not know if A[1] had kidnapped PW[1] in the year 2002, when the latter was 13 years of age or whether a crime was registered regarding the same. DW[3] identified PW[1] and A[1] in Exhibit PW1/D[1] to Exhibit PW1/D6photographs. DW[3] deposed that he does not know anything about this case except about the decision of the Panchayat.

31. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it is necessary to examine whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the essential ingredients of the offences for which the appellants stand convicted. To bring home an offence under Section 494 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove: (i) a valid subsisting first marriage; and (ii) a second marriage performed during the lifetime of the spouse of the first marriage. Section 495 IPC further requires proof that such second marriage was contracted by concealment of the former marriage from the person CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters with whom the subsequent marriage was contracted. Section 496 IPC is attracted where the marriage is gone through fraudulently without any intention of a lawful marriage. In the present case, the subsistence of the first marriage of A[1] with Kamlesh stands proved through the testimony of PW13, who collected photographs and recorded the statement of Jai Singh, the father of the first wife, during investigation. The defence has not seriously disputed the factum of the first marriage, and even the defence witnesses DW[1] and DW[3] have consistently deposed that A[1] was already married to Kamlesh prior to the alleged marriage with PW[1].

32. As regards the second marriage dated 22.11.2006, PW[1] has categorically deposed that A[1] took her to Arya Samaj Mandir and went through a marriage ceremony after representing himself to be unmarried. Her testimony finds corroboration by PW[8], the priest, who solemnized the marriage and identified A[1] in court. The affidavits executed by PW[1] and A[1] (Exhibit PW1/B and Exhibit PW1/C), as well as the marriage photographs (Exhibit PW1/D1–D[7]), further lend assurance to the prosecution version. The absence of proof of customary rites such as kanyadan does not take the “marriage” out of the ambit of Sections 494, 495 and 496 IPC, particularly when the accused himself projected the ceremony as a valid marriage to induce PW[1]. The materials on record clearly establish that A[1] knowingly concealed his prior subsisting marriage from PW[1] and induced her to go through the ceremony on the false representation that he was unmarried. The subsequent conduct of A[1] in asking PW[1] to return to her parental home and later disclosing that the marriage was a sham undertaken only to avoid the pending criminal case, unequivocally demonstrates that the ceremony was gone through fraudulently and without intention of a lawful marital relationship.

33. At this stage, the testimony of PW[8], the priest who solemnized the marriage, assumes significance. PW[8] has categorically deposed that he solemnized the marriage between PW[1] and A[1] on 22.11.2006 at the Arya Samaj Mandir and has CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters identified A[1] in court. Merely because PW[8] did not maintain a formal register of marriages or could not specify details such as the performance of kanyadan, his testimony cannot be discarded. PW[8] had no discernible motive to falsely implicate A[1], and his evidence lends independent corroboration to the version of PW[1] that a marriage ceremony was in fact performed.

34. The gravamen of the charge under Section 376 IPC is that PW1’s consent to sexual intercourse was vitiated by fraud and deception. The consistent testimony of PW[1] establishes that she consented to cohabitation solely on the belief that she was the legally wedded wife of A[1]. It has come on record that such belief was induced by deliberate concealment of the subsisting marriage of A[1]. The law is well settled that consent obtained on a misconception of fact, particularly as to the marital status of the accused, does not constitute valid consent in law. (See Anurag Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2019 SC 1857). PW[1] has consistently stated that had she known about the prior marriage of A[1], she would neither have gone through the marriage ceremony nor consented to physical relations. Her testimony has remained unshaken in cross-examination on this material aspect. The medical and forensic evidence, though not determinative by itself, supports the prosecution case regarding sexual intercourse. The offence under Section 376 IPC thus stands proved against A[1].

35. As regards criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, direct evidence of conspiracy is seldom available and the same is required to be inferred from the conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances. The evidence of PW[1] shows that A[2] and A[3], the parents of A[1], actively participated in facilitating the cohabitation by insisting that PW[1] reside with A[1] in a rented accommodation instead of the parental home, despite being aware of the subsisting first marriage. A[4] accompanied A[1] in taking PW[1] to the rented premises and in later leaving her at her parental home. These acts are not isolated or innocuous; they form part of a concerted design to enable A[1] to exploit PW[1] under the guise of a CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters false marriage. The collective conduct of A[2], A[3] and A[4] before, during and after the incident of 13.05.2007 clearly demonstrates a meeting of minds with A[1] to deceive PW[1] and facilitate the commission of the offence. The trial court has, therefore, rightly invoked Section 120B IPC and held A[2], A[3] and A[4] liable for the offence under Section 376 IPC with the aid of conspiracy.

36. The principal contention of the appellants that the alleged marriage has not been proved in accordance with law cannot be sustained. For the purpose of offences under Sections 494, 495 and 496 IPC, what is material is the fact that the accused went through a marriage ceremony and held it out as a valid marriage to deceive the victim. The prosecution evidence, particularly that of PW[1] and PW[8], sufficiently establishes this fact. The alleged contradictions between the testimonies of PW[1] and PW[4] are minor and pertain to peripheral details such as exact dates of disclosure and lodging of complaints. Such discrepancies are natural in the testimony of witnesses recounting traumatic CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters events after a lapse of time and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. On the core issue of deception, false marriage, and subsequent sexual exploitation, the testimonies of PW[1] and PW[4] are consistent and mutually corroborative.

37. The defence reliance on the alleged panchayat meeting and ExhibitDW1/DX does not advance the case of the appellants. None of the defence witnesses has personal knowledge of the marriage between PW[1] and A[1] or the events that transpired at the rented accommodation. Significantly, ExhibitDW1/DX does not bear the signature of PW[4], and even the defence witnesses conceded ignorance of the material facts. The trial court has rightly held that such evidence does not discredit the prosecution case. The contention that no conspiracy has been proved against A[2], A[3] and A[4] is equally untenable.

38. Insofar as A[4] is concerned, the argument that there is "no evidence" against him does not accord with the record. Criminal conspiracy is rarely established by direct evidence and is CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters required to be inferred from the conduct of the accused and the chain of circumstances. PW[1] has specifically deposed that A[4] accompanied A[1] when she was taken to the rented accommodation at Aman Vihar and that A[4] was also present when she was later left at her parental home. These acts are not neutral or accidental; they are integral links in the sequence of events by which PW[1] was deceitfully taken away, made to cohabit with A[1] under the false belief of marriage, and thereafter abandoned. The presence and participation of A[4] at these critical junctures, coupled with his admitted association with A[1], clearly establish his role in facilitating the offence. The contention that there is no evidence against A[4] ignores the settled principle that conspiracy can be inferred from coordinated conduct before, during, and after the commission of the offence. The trial court has, therefore, rightly rejected the plea of A[4] and held him liable with the aid of Section 120B IPC. The role attributed to him is not based on mere relationship with A[1] but on specific acts facilitating the offence. The cumulative effect of their conduct unmistakably points towards a shared intention and design.

39. In the light of overall re-appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds no infirmity, perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the trial court. The prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495, 496 and 376 read with Section 120B IPC against A[1] and the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 120B IPC against A[2], A[3] and A[4].

40. The findings recorded by the trial court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.

41. In the result, the appeal sans merit, is dismissed. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 12, 2026