Pappu Kumar Rai @ Pappu Rai @ Pappu Ray vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 825 Patna

Patna High Court

Pappu Kumar Rai @ Pappu Rai @ Pappu Ray vs The State Of Bihar on 15 April, 2026

Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1162 of 2024
        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-331 Year-2008 Thana- KHAJAULI District- Madhubani
     ======================================================
     Pappu Kumar Rai @ Pappu Rai @ Pappu Ray, Son of Bauku Rai @ Bauku
     Ray, R/O Vill.- Dhatta Tole, Maharajpur, P.S.- Khajauli, Dist.- Madhubani.
                                                                     ... ... Appellant
                                        Versus
1.    The State of Bihar
2.   Subodh Kumar Shrivastava @ Subodh Shrivastava, Son of Surendra Kumar
     Shrivastava, R/O Vill.- Maharajpur, Dhatta Tole, P.S.- Khajauli, Dist.-
     Madhubani.
3.   Raman Kumar Shrivastava, Son of Surendra Kumar Shrivastava, R/O Vill.-
     Maharajpur, Dhatta Tole, P.S.- Khajauli, Dist.- Madhubani.
4.    Bhawan Kumar Shrivastava, Son of Surendra Kumar Shrivastava, R/O Vill.-
      Maharajpur, Dhatta Tole, P.S.- Khajauli, Dist.- Madhubani.
                                                               ... ... Respondents
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Appellant        :      Mr. Murari Narain Chaudhary, Advocate
                                     Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate
     For the State            :      Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, Addl.PP
     For the Resp Nos. 2 to 4 :      Mr. Ugranath Mallik, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
             and
             HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
     ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Date : 15-04-2026

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel

for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present appeal arises out of judgment of acquittal

dated 27.02.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned

judgment') passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge,

Madhubani (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned trial court') in

Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2012 (CIS No. 2657 of 2013) arising out of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1162 of 2024 dt.15-04-2026

Khajauli P.S. Case No. 331 of 2008 whereby and whereunder

Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were acquitted of the charges levelled

against them under Sections 447, 427, 379 and 302 of the Indian

Penal Code (in short 'IPC')

Prosecution Case

3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of

Somni Devi (since deceased) recorded on 05.11.2008 at 19:45 Hours

at Khajauli PHC by Umesh Singh, ASI of Khajauli Police Station.

She alleged that on 05.11.2008 at 07:00 AM, when she was at her

home, (1) Subodh Kumar Shrivastava came at her house and told her

to vacate the house because Subodh Shrivastava had purchased the

house. She told him that there was no one at home, how she can

vacate the house. In the meantime, (2) Raman Shrivastava and (3)

Bhawan Shrivastava also came there. All of them started to uproot

the tat. She again told the accused persons that when her son,

namely, Pappu Rai come, she will vacate the house but all of them

broke the tat of the house and took away rice, wheat, moong etc. She

further alleged that Subodh Shrivastava caught hold of her hair and

tried to assault her. She tried to run but in the paddy field adjacent to

her house, Subodh Shrivastava dragged her down as a result of

which her left hand and both the legs became senseless. The quarrel

took place due to vacating of the house. She stated that Sunaina

Devi, Pappu Rai and other villagers were witnesses to the incident. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1162 of 2024 dt.15-04-2026

4. Later on, one another fardbeyan of Pappu Kumar Rai,

son of Somni Devi (since deceased) was recorded by ASI, Jagdish

Oraon, Benta OP, Dharbhanga on 09.11.2008 at 10:00 Hours at

DMCH in the Unit of Dr. Nand Kumar Unit. This was recorded after

the death of Somni Devi and he stated that on 05.11.2008 at 05:00

AM, he had gone to Kamlakaat Ghat on the occasion of Chhath Puja

and after the Puja when he returned home then on the disputed land,

(1) Subodh Kumar Shrivastava, (2) Raman Kumar Shrivastava and

(3) Bhawan Kumar Shrivastava were assaulting his mother and wife.

When he went to rescue them, they tried to assault him whereafter he

fled towards village and hid himself. After some time, when he came

back, he saw that his mother was lying senseless in the cattle house

and was in pain. On asking, her mother told him that (1) Subodh

Kumar Shrivastava, (2) Raman Kumar Shrivastava and (3) Bhawan

Kumar Shrivastava had abused her, broke the tat of the house and

had come to set fire to which she protested, then they assaulted her

causing grievous injuries and her daughter-in-law as well. He took

her mother to Khajauli Hospital for treatment and in Khajauli

Hospital, she had given her fardbeyan to the police. After the

treatment the doctor referred her to DMCH for proper treatment and

during the course of treatment at DMCH, his mother died.

5. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Somni

Devi, Khajauli P.S. Case No. 331 of 2008 dated 05.11.2008 was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1162 of 2024 dt.15-04-2026

registered against Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 under Sections 447,

341, 323, 427, 379, 354/34 IPC, later on after the death of Somni

Devi, Section 302 was also added.

6. After investigation, police submitted chargesheet

bearing Chargesheet No. 34 of 2010 dated 18.09.2010 against

Subodh Kumar Shrivastava under Section 302 IPC keeping

investigation pending against Raman Shrivastava and Bhawan

Shrivastava. Later on, a supplementary chargesheet bearing

Chargesheet No. 27 of 2011 dated 10.06.2011 was submitted against

Raman Shrivastava and Bhawan Shrivastava under Section 302/34

IPC.

7. On the basis of these chargesheets, learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani vide order dated 03.12.2010 took

cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and

committed the records to the court of Sessions.

8. Charges were explained to Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4

to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Accordingly, vide order dated 06.12.2012 charges were framed

under Sections 447, 427, 379 and 302/34 IPC against Respondent

Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

9. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as

five witnesses and got exhibited various documentary evidence. The

description of the prosecution witnesses and the list of documents Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1162 of 2024 dt.15-04-2026

exhibited on behalf of prosecution are provided hereunder for ready

reference in a tabular form:-

List of Prosecution Witnesses

Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witness No. 1 Sunaina Daughter-in-law of deceased 2 Reshma Devi Mother-in-law of deceased 3 Bablu Rai Son of deceased 4 Bauku Rai Husband of deceased 5 Pappu Rai Son of deceased

List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/ Attested by 1 Signature of Pappu Rai on PW-5 fardbeyan recorded at PHC Khajauli 1/a Signature of Pappu Rai on PW-5 fardbeyan recorded at DMCH, Darbhanga.

                    1/b       Signature of Pappu Rai on the PW-5
                              Inquest Report

10. Thereafter, the statements of Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and

4 were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (in short 'CrPC'). The Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in

their 313 CrPC statement denied the allegations and pleaded

innocence.

Findings of the Learned Trial Court

11. Learned trial court after analysing the evidences

available on the record found that there are many contradictions in

the evidences. Learned trial court found that no independent witness Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1162 of 2024 dt.15-04-2026

has been examined by the prosecution though it has come in

evidence that there were many villagers at the place of occurrence.

Learned trial court found that PW-4 stated that his wife told him

about the occurrence and PW-5 fled away from the place of

occurrence, hence, neither PW-4 nor PW-5 are eye witnesses.

12. Learned trial court further found that the fardbeyan of

Sunaina Devi cannot be said to be a dying declaration. Learned trial

court found that there is no certificate from the Doctor that the

victim was in a fit condition to give statement as also the ASI

Khajauli Police Station who recorded her fardbeyan or even the

doctor who was treating her have not be examined.

13. Learned trial court found that the Investigating Officer

has not been examined and his non-examination has proved fatal to

the prosecution. Learned trial court observed that fardbeyan cannot

be the sole basis for conviction.

14. Learned trial court further found that the Doctor who

conducted post-mortem has not been examined and the post-mortem

report has not been proved, hence, the prosecution failed to establish

the cause of death of the deceased.

15. Learned trial court after considering all the facts and

circumstances of the case held that the prosecution has failed to

prove the charges levelled against Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4

beyond all reasonable doubts, hence, Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1162 of 2024 dt.15-04-2026

have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 447, 427, 379 and

302 IPC.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

16. Learned counsel for the informant-appellant has

assailed the impugned judgment of acquittal on the ground that the

learned trial court has completely overlooked the materials available

on the record. The trial court has not taken into consideration that

the deceased had expired after recording her statement and such

statement was recorded when she was fully conscious and was

capable of giving her statement.

17. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial court has

also failed to appreciate that Sunaina Devi (PW-1) was an

eyewitness to the alleged occurrence, who in her deposition fully

narrated the manner of incident. It is submitted that the learned trial

court has wrongly disbelieved the deposition of Reshma Devi (PW-

2) who happens to be the mother-in-law of the deceased and had

witnessed the whole incident with her naked eyes.

18. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial court has

overlooked the fact that the second informant of this case, namely,

Pappu Rai (PW-5) was although not an eyewitness to the alleged

occurrence but he was narrated the whole incident by his deceased

mother and has reproduced the same.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1162 of 2024 dt.15-04-2026

19. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial

court could not appreciate that it was for the prosecution to make

appear all the witnesses who could have deposed the truth and for

this purpose, the learned trial court could have taken efforts.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents

20. On the other hand, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the

Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 would submit that the learned trial court has

duly appreciated the evidences available on the record. The

prosecution examined five witnesses who are all closely related to

the deceased. The learned trial court has found that the charge

against the accused persons are in furtherance of common intention,

the accused persons committed murder of Somni Devi, voluntarily

restrained her and also attacked her with an intention to commit

murder. The learned trial court has recorded that the court made

repeated attempts for the examination of the Doctor to procure his

presence before the court for evidence but the Doctor did not turn up

for evidence. The postmortem report has not been brought into

evidence by the prosecution. There is no eyewitness in this case and

the cause of death cannot be ascertained.

21. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial

court has duly considered as to whether the fardbeyan may be

treated as dying declaration. It has been held that in this case, the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1162 of 2024 dt.15-04-2026

informant was admitted at P.H.C., Khajauli and her fardbeyan was

recorded on the same day at 19:45 Hours. Later, it has come in

evidence that she was referred to DMCH, Darbhanga and died

during course of treatment. Thus, during this period, she was

admitted in the hospital but there was no certificate from the Doctor

that the victim was in a fit condition to make statement. The I.O. of

the case has also not been examined by the prosecution. The ASI

who had recorded the fardbeyan has not been examined and this

would prove fatal to the prosecution. Learned counsel, therefore,

submits that the judgment of acquittal is based on cogent reasons

deduced from the evidences available on the record, hence, no

perversity may be found in the impugned judgment.

Consideration

22. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for

the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as also on perusal of the records, this

Court finds that as per the prosecution case, the informant Somni

Devi recorded her statement on 05.11.2008 at 19:45 Hours at

Khajauli PHC by Umesh Singh, ASI of Khajauli P.S. in which she

alleged that on 05.11.2008 at 07:00 AM she was at her home.

Subodh Kumar Shrivastava came at her house and told her to vacate

the house because Subodh had purchased the house. She told him

that there was no one at home and then Raman Shrivastava and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1162 of 2024 dt.15-04-2026

Bhawan Shrivastava also came there. All of them started uprooting

the taat of the house. She told them that her son Pappu Rai will

come and then she will vacate the house but all of them broke the

taat of the house and took her rice, wheat, moong etc. Subodh

Shrivastava caught hold of her hair and tried to assault her. She tried

to run but in the paddy field adjacent to her house he dragged her

down as such her left hand and both the legs became senseless. It is

alleged that the quarrel took place due to the dispute over the house.

The informant claimed that Sunaina Devi and others were witnesses

to the incident.

23. This Court further finds that later on, fardbeyan of

Pappu Kumar Rai, who is the son of the deceased, was recorded by

ASI Jagdish Oraon, Benta O.P., Darbhanga on 09.11.2008 at 10:00

Hours at DMCH in the unit of Dr. Nand Kumar. This statement was

recorded after death of Somni Devi. In his statement, Pappu Kumar

Rai alleged that on 05.11.2008 at 05:00 AM he had gone to

Kamlakat Ghat on the occasion of Chhath Puja and after Puja when

he returned home then on the disputed land Subodh Kumar

Shrivastava, Raman Kumar Shrivastava, Bhawan Kumar

Shrivastava and his villagers were assaulting his mother and wife

and when he went for the rescue, then they tried to assault him. He

fled towards village and hid himself. After some time, when he

came back, he saw that his mother was lying senseless in the cattle Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1162 of 2024 dt.15-04-2026

house and was in pain. She told that Subodh Kumar Shrivastava,

Raman Kumar Shrivastava and Bhawan Kumar Shrivastava had

abused him and broken the taat of the house and had given order to

lit fire. When she had made protest then they assaulted her and also

to her daughter-in-law. He took her to Khajauli Hospital for the

treatment and in Khajauli, she had given her fardbeyan to the police.

After treatment by the Doctor, she was referred to DMCH for proper

treatment and during the course of treatment at DMCH, his mother

died.

24. It appears on perusal of the records that in this case, the

prosecution has examined Sunania Devi (PW-1), Reshma Devi (PW-

2), Bablu Rai (PW-3), Bauku Rai (PW-4) and Pappu Rai (PW-5).

PW-1 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. She has claimed that

on the date of occurrence, she was with her mother-in-law sitting at

the door of the house. Subodh Kumar Shrivastava, Raman Kumar

Shrivastava, Bhawan Kumar Shrivastava came and they twisted the

neck (kanth) of Somni Devi and threw her in the paddy field. In her

cross-examination, she has stated that both the parties had land

dispute and litigation was going on. She was not aware whether her

father-in-law Bauku Rai had sold the land to the accused persons or

not. In paragraph '8' of her deposition, she has stated that when the

accused persons came, except her nobody else was there near her

mother-in-law. She has specifically stated that her husband and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1162 of 2024 dt.15-04-2026

father-in-law had not come. In paragraph '9', she has stated that

after 5-7 days of the occurrence, her husband came and after 10 days

of the occurrence, her father-in-law came. In paragraph '10' of her

deposition, PW-1 has stated that her mother-in-law had become

unconscious during the occurrence and she died in the unconscious

condition. Her treatment had taken place at Darbhanga and nowhere

else. This witness has stated that the occurrence took place in the

cattle shed. The case was lodged three days after the death and it

was lodged by her father-in-law Bauku Rai. Police had come to her

house three days after the death of her mother-in-law.

25. Reshma Devi (PW-2) is the mother-in-law of the

deceased. She has stated that her daughter-in-law Somni Devi

returned from Chhath Ghat then Subodh Kumar Shrivastava, Raman

Kumar Shrivastava and Bhawan Kumar Shrivastava asked Somni

Devi to vacate the house. She did not vacate the house, therefore,

Subodh Kumar Shrivastava, Raman Kumar Shrivastava and Bhawan

Kumar Shrivastava started uprooting the house and they pressed the

neck of her daughter-in-law and hanged her. She was taken to

Khajauli but Doctor did not admit her and then she was taken to

Darbhanga where during treatment she died after three days. In her

cross-examination, this witness has stated that she can see only up to

2-3 hands distance and she cannot see more than that. In her cross-

examination, she had stated that Somni had returned from Ghat at Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1162 of 2024 dt.15-04-2026

07-08:00 AM. She claimed that Ganga Prasad Rai and many other

people had come at the place of occurrence and they had seen the

occurrence.

26. Bablu Rai (PW-3) is the son of the deceased. He has

stated that at the time of occurrence, he had gone to bandh to see his

field. His bhabhi and mother were present in the baithka. This

witness has specifically stated in paragraph '4' of his deposition that

his father was not present there at the time of occurrence and he

returned on 8th and came to DMCH after three days. In paragraph

'5', he has stated that when he returned home, his mother was lying

unconscious. This witness has claimed that she was taken to hospital

by his elder brother whose name is Pappu Rai. He reached hospital

at 8:30 where treatment started and thereafter her mother regained

consciousness. On the second day at Darbhanga in the morning, her

statement was recorded. He has stated that his brother and mother

had only gone to the hospital and there was no fourth person. He has

stated that his brother works in Ludhiana but on the date of

occurrence he was here, he had come from Ludhiana about 10 days

back. He claims that he also lives in Ludhiana and had returned only

10 days prior to the occurrence.

27. From a bare reading of the deposition of PW-1, PW-2

and PW3, it appears that they are making contradictory statements

to each other. PW-1 is the wife of Pappu Rai, who has categorically Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1162 of 2024 dt.15-04-2026

stated that when the occurrence took place, only she was present

with her mother-in-law. Her husband came after 5-7 days of the

occurrence and father-in-law came after ten days. In paragraph '8',

she has stated that half an hour after the occurrence, the

grandmother-in-law (dadi) had come. Thus, PW-1 denies the

presence of PW-2 and PW-3 at the place of occurrence. She has

specifically stated that there was no one else except her with her

mother-in-law at the time of occurrence. The claim of PW-2 and

PW-3, therefore, that they were present at the place of occurrence

would not inspire confidence. In fact, PW-3 claims that her mother

had regained consciousness in the hospital, but PW-1 has

specifically stated that her mother-in-law remained unconscious

throughout and she died in unconscious condition during her

treatment in DMCH. PW-3 has claimed that his mother had regained

consciousness in the hospital, but this statement of PW-3 is in

complete conflict and contradiction with the statement of PW-1.

PW-3 denies the presence of any fourth person except he, his mother

and his brother in the hospital, whereas PW-1 has claimed in

paragraph '11' that she had gone to Darbhanga during the treatment

of her mother-in-law and she had stayed there for three days, after

her death she had returned with the mother-in-law of the deceased.

From the evidence of PW-1, it appears that PW-1 claims that she

along with PW-2 had returned from the hospital after death of her Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1162 of 2024 dt.15-04-2026

mother-in-law. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are contradicting each other

on this point. PW-2 has specifically stated in paragraph '8' of her

deposition that Somni Devi was taken to hospital at 11:00 AM. She

was taken to hospital by Jokhan Rai, Pavitra and others. In this case,

Jokhan Rai and Pavitra have not been examined. It is evident that

PW-2 does not support the statement of PW-1 and PW-3 as to who

were the persons who had gone with the victim and stayed with her

during her treatment in DMCH.

28. Bauku Rai (PW-4) has claimed himself an eyewitness.

He is the husband of the deceased and father-in-law of Sunaina

(PW-1). In his examination-in-chief, this witness has stated that his

wife had told him about the occurrence when he returned home after

the occurrence. He has stated about the transactions of land having

taken place between the parties, but denies that there was any land

dispute. He claimed that he had some outstanding against the

accused on account of two dhur of land. The dispute was over Rs.

12,000/- which was due against the accused persons. He has

specifically stated that at the time of occurrence, he was in Khajauli.

From the evidence of PW-4, it is evident that he had not seen the

occurrence.

29. Pappu Rai (PW-5) is the elder son of the deceased,

about whom PW-3 has stated that he had taken the victim to the

hospital. PW-5 is the husband of PW-1. He claimed that he had Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1162 of 2024 dt.15-04-2026

taken his mother for treatment to Khajauli hospital where police had

come and recorded the statement of his mother. He had put his

signature on the said statement of his mother and this witness has

identified his signature (Exhibit '1'). He also proved his signature

on his fardbeyan recorded at DMCH on 09.11.2008 (Exhibit '1/A').

This witness has stated that at the time of occurrence he was in his

house, but contrary to his claim, his wife (PW-1) has stated that her

husband came 5-7 days after the occurrence. This witness has stated

that the accused persons had tried to assault him also, he had fled

away to his maternal uncle's place, which is at a distance of about 4-

5 kilometers west-south. This witness has stated that when he fled

away, at that time his mother was lying on the bed. He had not

stated to his maternal uncle about the persons who were present at

the occurrence. This witness has stated that on the date of

occurrence, his other three brothers and father were not present at

house and he had given information of the occurrence to his brothers

and father, they came on 08.11.2008 in Darbhanga hospital.

30. It is evident from the deposition of this witness (PW-5)

that while he claims that the statement of her mother was recorded

at Khajauli, PW-1 has stated that her mother-in-law died in

unconscious condition. PW-3 has stated in paragraph '5' of his

deposition that his mother had regained consciousness after one

hour and at that time, her mother was in Khajauli hospital. It was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1162 of 2024 dt.15-04-2026

around 9:00-9:30 AM. This witness had gone to badhar between

5:00 to 6:00 o'clock and returned by 6:45 and he claimed that he

along with his elder brother had taken their mother (deceased) to the

hospital. This statement of PW-3 is in complete contradiction with

the statement of his brother (PW-5). PW-5 claimed that he had fled

away from the place of occurrence and had gone to the village of his

maternal uncle from where he returned around 3:00-4:00 PM

(evening) and till that time his mother was lying on the cot. Near his

mother, his grandmother and wife were sitting. PW-5 has stated that

at the time of occurrence, his other three brothers and father were

not at house. This shows the falsity of the statement of PW-3, who

claims his presence in the house at 6:45 AM and has stated that at

9:30 AM he had taken his mother with his elder brother to the

hospital at Khajauli.

31. We have discussed the entire evidences available on

the record hereinabove. This Court has no iota of doubt in saying

that these prosecution witnesses have been contradicting each other

on several aspects. They have contradicted the presence of each

other at the place of occurrence. The trial court is correct in

recording that there is no eyewitness of the occurrence. The quality

of the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, who are all closely

related to the deceased, are very poor and they do not inspire

confidence of the Court. Although the officer who recorded the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1162 of 2024 dt.15-04-2026

fardbeyan of the informant, the I.O. and the doctor have not been

examined in this case, in our considered opinion, that would not

make any difference as the witnesses produced on behalf of

prosecution are falling in the category of wholly unreliable

witnesses.

32. We are considering an appeal against acquittal. It is

well settled in law that an appellate court need not interfere with the

judgment of the learned trial court regarding acquittal of the accused

unless the appellate court comes to an irresistible conclusion that the

accused are guilty of the offences.

33. We do not find any perversity in the impugned

judgment of acquittal.

34. This appeal has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

( Soni Shrivastava, J) SUSHMA2/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          20.04.2026
Transmission Date       20.04.2026