AI Generated Image Used For Representational Purpose Only
The case arose from an incident on Sept 17, 2025, at a mall in Borivli West. The victim, a sales girl at the mall, told the court that around 6 pm she was on duty and walking towards billing counter number 6 after taking a cold drink bottle.
Additional Sessions Judge P A Sane said the victim’s evidence was “convincing” and not disbelievable. After she asked him to go ahead, he left briefly and returned, according to the prosecution. The victim said 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, forcibly kissed her, caused her to fall and kissed her again.
“There is nothing coming on record as to why the victim will depose against the accused. So there is no possibility that she would falsely involve the accused in this case,” the judge held. A man in a pink shirt approached her and asked where the washroom was. She pointed in that direction, but he repeatedly asked her to show him. Staff and other people in the mall caught him. Police were called, and he was taken into custody the same day.
Moreover, it is coming on record that she did not know the accused before the incident.
In a trial that lasted only 2 months, dismissing the defence, the court found Ritesh Armulla guilty of using criminal force and making unwelcome physical contact with explicit sexual overtures.
MUMBAI: Ruling that a natural reaction to a fall does not involve kissing the victim, a sessions court convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment 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. “Even for the sake of argument, if it is considered 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 prosecution examined the victim, an eyewitness, the investigating officer and a mall employee linked to the CCTV footage. The victim identified Armulla in court, and the eyewitness supported her account. The defence questioned proof of the CCTV footage, non-examination of a mall official, absence of hash value and intent, claiming any contact may have been accidental. The court found the oral evidence sufficient and granted set-off for custody already undergone since arrest.