report. The alleged occurrence took place on 17.03.2019, whereas the complaint was lodged on 18.03.2019; the delay was not explained by the prosecution. In fact, the appellant was not even present on 17.03.2019 at his shop since he had gone to Tirupathy. In support of his contention, on the side of the accused/appellant, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined. The witnesses categorically deposed that on 17.03.2019, they celebrated the appellant's sister-in-law's daughter's “Thali Korkkum” function, and on the same day, they went to Tirupathy, and thereafter, the appellant, along with the other family members, returned only on 19.03.2019 from Tirupathy. The appellant had also produced photographs which were taken at that “Thali Korkkum” function which was held on 17.03.2019 at Tirupathy. The photographs were also marked as Ex.D3. Further, he stated that no such occurrence had taken place as alleged by the prosecution and a false complaint has been foisted against the appellant. Even assuming that the appellant was in that place on the date of the alleged occurrence, the testimony of the mother of the victim girl/P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution. Even according to her, the appellant had touched all over the body of the victim girl. Further, the victim girl was examined as P.W.2, she deposed that the
