Mumbai: Ruling that a natural reaction to a fall does not involve kissing the victim, a sessions court convicted and sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment (RI) a 34-year-old cleaner who claimed he “accidentally slipped and fell” onto a saleswoman at a Borivli (W) mall before forcibly kissing her twice last year.In a trial that lasted only two months, dismissing the defence, the court found Ritesh Armulla guilty of using criminal force and making unwelcome physical contact with explicit sexual overtures.“Even for the sake of argument, if it is considered that a person slipped and fell on another person, the natural reaction would be different from the person kissing the person on whom he fell,” judge said.The offences are covered under BNS sections 74 (assault or the use of criminal force against a woman with the intent to outrage, or knowing it is likely to outrage, her modesty) and 75 (sexual harassment) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.Additional Sessions Judge P A Sane said, “The evidence of the victim is convincing and is not disbelievable. There is nothing coming on record as to why the victim will depose against the accused. Moreover, it is coming on record that she did not know the accused before the incident. So there is no possibility that she would falsely involve the accused in this case.” This is one of the few convictions since BNHS replaced IPC.The judge sentenced Armulla to one year’s RI and a fine of Rs 1,000 for the offence under Section 74, and one year’s simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs 500 for the offence under Section 75. Both sentences will run concurrently. The court directed that Rs 1,000 from the fine amount be paid to the victim, whose identity is being withheld, and the remaining amount be credited to the govt.The judge further held, “So this aspect is considered, and there is sufficient reason to believe that the accused intentionally and knowingly did the act; first, by way of kissing the complainant, making her fall down and again kissing her is nothing but an act of outraging the modesty by using criminal force. He followed the complainant to show her to the washroom and, with the intention to outrage her modesty, physically contacted her with explicit sexual overtures.”The case arose from an incident on Sept 17, 2025, at a mall in Borivli (West). The victim, who was working as a sales girl at the mall, told the court that around 6 pm she was on duty and was walking towards billing counter number 6 after taking a bottle of cold drink. At that time, a man wearing a pink shirt approached and asked her where the washroom was. She pointed towards the direction, but the man repeatedly asked her to show him the washroom.According to the prosecution, after the victim asked the man to go ahead, he went away briefly and returned. The victim deposed that the accused came from behind, knocked against her, asked her to take him to the washroom, and when she refused and proceeded towards the billing counter, he forcibly kissed her, caused her to fall on the ground, and kissed her again. Staff members and people present in the mall caught him. The police were called, and the accused was taken into custody the same day.The court recorded that the victim lodged the FIR immediately on Sept 17, 2025. During investigations, police prepared the spot panchnama, arrested the accused, recorded witness statements, and collected CCTV footage from the mall. The chargesheet was filed on Nov 11, 2025, and charges were framed on July 4, 2026.The prosecution examined four witnesses: the victim, an eyewitness working in the mall, the investigating officer, and a mall employee connected with the CCTV footage. The victim identified Armulla in court and stated that he was the person who had committed the act. The court noted that her testimony was supported by an eyewitness, who said he was present in the mall and saw the accused kiss the victim, make her fall, and kiss her again before being caught.The defence argued that the CCTV footage had not been properly proved, that the prosecution had not examined one mall official named Amar Jadhav, that the hash value of the footage was not produced, and that the accused had not used force or kissed the victim with any intention to outrage her modesty. The defence also suggested that because there was a crowd, the accused may have accidentally dashed against the victim and fallen.The judge accepted that the electronic evidence had weaknesses but held that the oral evidence of the victim and the eyewitness was sufficient and trustworthy. “Even for the sake of argument, it is considered that if a person slipped and fell on another person, the natural reaction would be different from the person kissing the person on whom he fell,” the judge said.Before sentencing, the defence sought leniency, stating that this was the accused’s first offence, that there were no criminal antecedents, and that he had remained in custody since Sept 17, 2025.The court granted set-off for the period already undergone in custody.
