1. EK RUKA HUA FAISLA
Submitted by :
arnold
dheeraj
ankit
santosh
nitish

4. FACTS PRESENTED IN COURT
The knife; the tool used to murder
the old man
Eye witness 1 – an old man who lived just
beneath the house of the victim
Eye witness 2 – a lady who lived right across the
street just opposite to the victim’s house
4

5. THE VERDICT
*At the start of discussion all agreed that the boy was
guilty except for one i.e. juror 8
*Everyone tried to convince him that he was wrong, but he
stood his ground and never change his opinion.
*After listening to his thought, juror 9 an old man
supported his opinion.
*Juror 8 was very creative and came up with great facts
about the case which showed that the boy wasn’t guilty.
*With his persuasive power and after learning all those
facts, the remaining jurors subsequently started to change
their minds.
*Juror 3 however was aggressive and had a sense of self
important, did try to prove that the boy was guilty but
finally gave up.

6.  Juror 8 proved that it was impossible for the
old man to heard the noise and to walk down
the hall and reaching the front door in 15 sec
 He lied to the court as he wasn’t known to
anybody so he tried seeking attention from
the media and the mass people
 They also proved that the woman lied.
 Finally decided that the boy was innocent

7. Social Cognitive Theory :-
*Jurors learned and made the final decisions or changed
their behavior through social environment and personal
factor.
*E.g. – juror no. 9 decided to support juror 8’s decision
that the boy was innocent where everybody else were
against it.
Experiential learning :-
*All the jurors were learning through direct experience
*They were working as a team to come to a final decision
in that situation of making verdict.
Cognitive theory :-
*Based on the facts and finding about the case, they
agreed on the final outcome i.e. the boy was innocent

8. Working as a team:-
* Had a common goal to give a verdict and they were
interdependent to each other
Social loafing :-
* Some jurors were less responsible and contributing less in the
discussion.
Free-rider effect, as some were not giving enough
participation under the assumption that others will cover it.
Group cohesiveness :-
* From the beginning, there were disagreement among some
jurors and some were not in the favor that the boy was
innocent
* Nevertheless, the group stick together and finally made the
decision that the boy was innocent, and every jurors respected
the decision.
* Group dynamics :-
* They interacted and some jurors were able to influenced
attitudes and behaviors of others.

9. o Juror 8 leadership could be classified as a democratic
leadership. He involves other members actively and asks
them their point of view to discuss.
o Juror 8 leadership could be classified as a supportive
leadership. He provided a great deal of direction and leads
with his ideas.
o Juror 8 leadership could be described as Transformational
Leadership. He had inspired the other jury members to
transcend their own self- interest in order to have a
meaningful and healthy analysis of the case.

10. * Stereotyping :
* The last person who changed his opinion that the accused
was not guilty i.e. juror 3 was actually stereotyping. In the
past, his son, a teenager once had fight with him &
because of this incident he made a general perception
that all teenagers are irresponsible & could indulge in
crime very easily.
* One of the jurors had a very selective perception he just
accepted the evidence that the boy was guilty on its face
value & made up his mind which was easier for him to
believe without proper thought.
* Projection:
* According to one of the juror 10, the accused came from
slum & poor background. The boy also had a history of
small crime. He projected that the boy is guilty, as most
of the criminals come from poor & slum background.

11. COMPARISON BETWEEN
THREE JURORS
Lead roles :
Juror 8 :- Played by
K.K. Raina
Juror 9 :- Played by
Annu Kapoor
Juror 3 :- Played by
Pankaj Kapur

12. J8 :
• His perception was very positive.
• Initially he was having doubt about the case, but
as discussion goes on he was convinced the accused
wasn’t guilty.
J9 :
• Good perception
• Wanted to discuss and listen more about the case
J3 :
• Bad perception
• Always wanted other jurors to be on his side
• Forced others to made the decision what he
wanted them to make

13. J8 :
Openness to experience :-
*Degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity and a
preference for novelty and variety.
Emotional stability :-
*Calm, self confidence and cool.
*High Self efficacy
Proactive personality :-
*Identifying opportunities, showing initiatives and
act on them till the desired result comes.
* Active constructive :-
*Actively participated in the discussion. Took
initiatives and ideas were logical and reliable.

14. J9 :
Agreeableness :-
*Compassionate, cooperative, warm and agreeable
Good listener :-
*Was listening to every juror whether positive or negative
opinion until he came with valid point.
Patience :-
*Showed patient when other jurors made inappropriate
behaviors with him, Patiently observed everyone’s point
of view very closely.
J3 :
Neuroticism :-
*experiencing unpleasant emotions easily such as anger,
anxiety, aggression, depression, or vulnerability
Narcissism :-
*Arrogant, sense of self importance & self admiration, or
extreme selfishness.
* Active destructive

15. J8 :
Intrinsic motivation :-
*Doing his job and trying to achieve the best from
the case to get his own satisfaction and
fulfillment.
Need for achievement (McClelland’s need) :-
*He was seeking for excellence, competition,
challenging and difficult goals
Progression satisfaction :-
*He remained at a particular need level until that
need was satisfied.

16. J9 :
* He was very supportive and a motivating factor for J8 .
* He motivated him to come up with valid points.
* When everybody were against J8’s opinion, he stood up in his
side
J3 :
Need for power (McClelland’s theory):-
* He wanted to direct, control and influence the jurors’
opinion.

17. J8 :
Persuasive :-
*By providing new info, he convinced others to
change their minds.
*Great communicator
*Positive attitude and leadership skills
J9 :
*Good attitude
*Opportunity grabber, he made some relevant
points which was the turning point of the case.
J3 :
*Loud mouthed, Bad attitude
*Selfish
*Stubborn, Didn't respect others opinion.