A Mumbai sessions court has upheld Aditya Pancholi’s conviction in the 2005 parking assault case but modified his one-year jail sentence.
Aditya Pancholi escapes jail time as a Mumbai court upholds his conviction in the 2005 parking assault case but modifies his sentence.
A sessions court in Mumbai has upheld actor Aditya Pancholi’s conviction in the long-standing 2005 parking assault case but modified the original punishment. While the magistrate had sentenced Pancholi to one year of simple imprisonment, the sessions court ordered his release on a bond of good behavior under the Probation of Offenders Act.
As part of the modified order, the 59-year-old actor has been directed to pay ₹1.5 lakh as compensation to the victim, Pratik Pashine, to avail the benefit of probation. This ruling came after Pancholi challenged his conviction in the sessions court.
The incident dates back to August 2005, when a parking dispute between Pancholi and his neighbor, Pratik Pashine, escalated into a physical altercation. According to Pashine, the argument began when Pancholi found a car parked in his designated spot. Frustrated, Pancholi parked his vehicle behind the other car, blocking its exit. Later that evening, Pashine received a call from his watchman, asking him to move his car. Though the two exchanged heated words over the intercom, Pashine eventually agreed to move his vehicle.
However, when Pashine came downstairs, Pancholi confronted him and allegedly assaulted him. Pashine claimed that Pancholi also attacked his father when he tried to intervene. The following day, Pashine filed a complaint at the Versova police station, leading to Pancholi being booked under IPC sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), and 501(2) (defamation).
In November 2016, the Metropolitan Magistrate (Andheri) convicted Pancholi under IPC Section 325 and sentenced him to one-year imprisonment. Pancholi subsequently appealed the decision. On Thursday, Additional Sessions Judge D.G. Dhoble partly allowed Pancholi’s appeal, stating that while the conviction would stand, the jail term would not be enforced if Pancholi adhered to the terms of his probation.
The case, spanning nearly two decades, has now reached a conclusion with Pancholi avoiding jail time but being held accountable through monetary compensation and a promise of good behavior.
(With inputs from PTI)
