Actor’s conviction upheld, but jail term now probation | Mumbai News

Mumbai: Observing that criminal jurisprudence recognises reformative action rather than retribution, a Mumbai sessions court judge upheld the conviction of actor Aditya Pancholi for assaulting a man in a two-decade-old car parking dispute but dropped the one-year jail term handed to him and ordered his release on a bond of good behaviour.
Sessions judge D G Dhoble, in a Feb 20 judgment, cited provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to say both aim to avoid sentencing first-time offenders to prison.
The Railway Mobile Court Magistrate at Andheri had in Nov 2016 held Pancholi, then 52 years old, guilty under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to a year in jail and also imposed a fine of Rs 20,000 as compensation to victim Pratik Pashine.
The FIR filed at Versova Police Station had said on August 21, 2005, a fight broke out between Pancholi and the complainant over a car that was parked in the wrong place near the Four Bungalows market. The complainant accused the actor of “verbally abusing him” and allegedly hitting him with his fist, leading to a nose “fracture.” After evidence was presented and four prosecution witnesses deposed, the magistrate found Pancholi guilty of causing grievous hurt.
The actor appealed against his conviction. He claimed he was falsely implicated. The sessions court said, “There is no reason to believe that the victim falsely implicated” Pancholi. It said the evidence of the informant was “crystal clear” that he was assaulted on his nose and head with a “fist blow” over a parking dispute, leading to a hairline nose fracture. “His evidence is cogent, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence,” said the judgment.
However, judge Dhoble also added, “The Magistrate should have considered whether imprisonment serves any purpose other than stigmatisation. Sentencing policy should balance deterrence and correction.” The sessions judge agreed with Pancholi’s lawyer that the sentence was harsh and benefit of probation was not even considered by the magistrate. Considering that the crime occurred 20 years ago and Pancholi is a “71-year-old prominent actor” with no criminal antecedents, with it being a “spur of the moment” act in a parking dispute, the court must consider these aspects. Besides, he “did not act in a cruel manner,” said the appeal court. Imposing a sentence “without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be a futile exercise,” the court said, granting Pancholi the benefit of release under the Probation of Offenders Act.
The court ordered Pancholi to “maintain peace and good behaviour for one year” and not get involved in criminal activities. The sessions court also directed Pancholi to pay enhanced compensation of Rs 1.5 lakh.