1. The document describes the 1986 film "Ek Ruka Hua Faisla" which depicts the deliberations of a 12-member jury deciding the fate of a man accused of killing his father. 2. It outlines the plot where most jurors initially vote for the death penalty but the 8th juror argues they should discuss the case further. 3. Through discussion of the facts and each juror's perspectives, the 8th juror manages to convince the others that the accused is innocent, showing how personal views and biases can influence legal decisions.

1. Assignment no. 1
Sagar A, Agrawal
Roll no. 22
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Ek Ruka Hua Faisla (A verdict on Hold)
Cast
1.Deepak Kejriwal as Juror #1
2.Amitabh Srivastava as Juror #2
3.Pankaj Kapur as Juror #3
4.S. M. Zaheer as Juror #4
5.Subhash Udghate' 'as Juror #5
6.Hemant Mishra as Juror #6
7.M. K. Raina as Juror #7
8.K. K. Raina as Juror #8
9.Annu Kapoor as Juror #9
10.Subbiraj as Juror #10
11.Shailendra Goel as Juror #11
Aziz Qureshi as Juror #12
Ek Ruka Hua Faisla is an out-an-out serious movie that grips you
till the very end, just like it portrays the characters trapped in a
journey of questioning their conviction about a murder trial.
Importance of Verbal Communication in Group Interaction
Verbal communication is the most effective way to give instruction,
correction or direction to a group. Without it there can be
misunderstandings, frustration and lack of productivity.
Verbal communication is essential to have a healthy and fruitful
group or team. It helps set guidelines and boundaries in team
dynamics that allow a group to achieve the goal it intends to
accomplish.
• Gives Instruction
• Allows for Clarity

2. • Provides Direction
• Power of Persuasion
• Encourages Resolve
Film “Ek Ruka Hua Faisla” shows us that impulsive
decisions are not good and we have to be objective when
important decisions have to be taken.
A young boy has been charged for killing his father and court has appointed
a jury of 12 members to decide whether man is guilty and hence deserves a
capital punishment or not? Members of Jury are not lawyers but they belong
to different sections of society. All the members of Jury are gathered in a
closed room. As soon as meeting is started, few of them are eager to seal the
fate of the man and 11 people decide that decision to give capital punishment
to the accused is perfectly right. He killed his father and he deserves this and
he should be hanged.
8th Juror, opposes this decision. Not that he says that accused is innocent;
but he starts his arguments that it’s a very sensitive matter, as a person’s life is
on stake and jurors should discuss all the factors associated with the case. He
is interrupted by most of the jurors as some of them are in a hurry. Somebody
has got cinema tickets(M.K Raina #7th juror) for the evening show and he has
to reach at home at time to pick up his wife and staying in this meeting any
longer is a waste of time for him. Another person also has some important
meeting to attend. Almost everybody has some excuse or other for going home
or else where.
One juror is filled with aghast that how one can kill his own father? He is clear
that such person should be killed immediately. 8th Juror tries again and says,”
O.K, let’s say he did not kill his father and what is wrong if we discuss the case
at least for a little time. I will put up my arguments in favor of the innocence
of that accused person and you all may contradict me”.He starts his
arguments and soon most of the jurors are in his trap depending on their
resistive power. 8th Juror keeps giving his arguments and tries to re-consider
all the facts related to the case and many jurors start taking interest in his

3. arguments. The juror, who has to go to cinema, is frustrated seeing meeting is
going on and on. Soon meeting reaches at that interesting point where 8th
Juror is supported by 4-5 other jurors.
After a few more minutes and 8th juror is able to successfully convince more
jurors in his favor and soon only two jurors are left there in his opposition. 8th
Juror enacts the last scene of killing as defined in the police report. He
analyses whole situation and proves that the person has not killed his father
and police has trapped him in a false case. One elder member of Jury, who is
still opposing any kind of argument in the favor of accused, breaks down and
he cries and tells all the jurors that his own son insults him and does not take
care for him, this man should also have been doing same with his old father
and he is certain that he has killed his father.
He sees the image of his cruel son in the accused person and thus wishes
him to be hanged. Scene becomes emotional, the elder juror is crying and
telling all other jurors, his own pathetic conditions he has to face at his own
home.
It’s decided now that accused has not killed his father and all the jurors praise
now 8th juror that he and his rationale approach could save the life of an
innocent man.
What fascinated me about the movie is how the nature of each character is
slowly revealed through the process of the discussions and how this is a
reflection of their personal beliefs, convictions, notions, prejudices, and
cultural & social backgrounds. And this is done without even identifying any
of them as belonging to any race or religion, to the extent that they are just
referred to as jury one, jury two and so on!!
Another impressive aspect of the movie is its attention to detail, as each and
every small and sometimes unimaginable nuance of the case is analyzed and
debated upon. It's almost like you are a part of the jury, presented with a case,
and discover for yourself what could be the reality.
I drew from the movie was how bound we are by our prejudices and how
impossible it is to be "completely rational". So interwoven are these
prejudices with our personalities that they leave their impression on every
single decision we ever make.