The movie 12 Angry Men, directed by Sidney Lumet, starts in a court where the case being discussed

in the court is a murder case, which is "son killing his father with a knife". The Jury which consisted
of 12 men was given the task of deciding whether the accused is guilty or not. They decide to
perform a preliminary vote in which 11 men voted that the accused was guilty and only one man
voted that he was not guilty of the charge. That one person ask the other eleven men to start telling
why the thought that the accused was guilty. The Other 11 men started by telling the facts about
how an old man lived right under the room where the Killing happened and how he heard the son
shouting "I'll kill you" when the murder happened, they also mentioned that the son's story is flimsy
and then they talk about how the woman saw the murder happening from across the street correct
at midnight (12:10) and end by saying that it all fits perfectly. One of the Jury Starts talking about
how a murder requires the motive and says that the motive could have been the two slaps during
the fight that occurred at 8 o'clock, when this is said, the person who voted otherwise the defends
the kid by saying that violence is practically a part of the kid's life and that it was normalcy for him.
After this the past records of the kid were taken up and also they talk about how because he came
from a slum he probably killed his father, this was because of a stereotypical thinking of the person
who said it. Next as the discussion continuous on, the knife which was used to kill the father was
brought into the room to check it again, the other juries say that it was a unique knife but the Jury
number 8 brings out another knife which is quite similar to the other one proving it as not unique
and hence wants the others to believe that it could have been a coincidence that the used to kill the
father was a similar one to the one that the boy had, and also that the boy could have really lost the
knife, after talking for few more minutes decide to take a secret vote, in which one more person
votes he is not guilty, after this this again start to talk. Now the defendant starts to makes the two of
the testimonies and tries to prove that the old man under the room couldn't have heard the boy
shouting I kill you, by saying that the train, from which the woman saw the murder, was passing at
the same time and the train makes a lot of noise and the old man couldn't have heard the boy
shouting in all that noise. After this there occurs and other voting session in which two more people
change to not guilty. The four of them form a group and start asking questions that actually
questions whether the kid is really guilty or not. The next thing that the jury 8 does is that he
practically tests the testimony of the old man, by walking at the same speed as that of the old man
and checking the time which was not matching to the one that the old man tells in the court. In the
next voting session, the result is 6-6. The six people who said the boy was guilty start asking the
question that why the boy couldn't remember the movie that he went to, to which Jury number 8
says that the boy could have forgotten about the movie probably because he was under a huge
amount of emotional stress after knowing that his father was killed. After this they started to check
the angle from which the father was stabbed, and since the boy was shorter than the father, the
only possible way to stab him was from downwards to upwards but the actual stabbing happened
from upwards to downwards which proves that the killer was taller than the father. After this the
vote stood at 9 not guilty and three guilty. After some more discussion the vote was changed to 8-4.
After this the testimony of the woman is questioned when one of the Jury says that the woman had
two imprints on the bridge of a nose which could have been only left by glasses, and it is known that
people do not wear their spectacles when they go to bed, and in the testimony of the woman it is
mentioned that the woman was going to sleep which means she couldn't have worn her glasses at
that time and hence couldn't have seen the killer properly. After hearing this, the tables turned by
getting 11 not guilty and 1 guilty voting, and the one remaining person at the last moment get
emotional by comparing this case to his own son but finally budges and says that the kid was not
guilty. The Jury discussion ends with the verdict that the boy was not guilty.