Talk:Rustom (film)

Plot clarification
In this edit I flagged a statement in the plot as needing clarification. The statement says:
 * The crux of the case was whether Commander Rustom shot Vikram in the "heat of the moment" or whether it was premeditated murder. At the culmination of the trial, Rustom is found not guilty and is freed.

This doesn't make sense to me. We are implying that the core debate, i.e. "the crux of the case" involves determining whether Rustom killed with premeditation, or in the heat of the moment. Both of these positions require that he killed someone, so it's confusing when we say that he was found not guilty, since killing is typically illegal unless it was an accident. Is killing in the heat of passion legal in India? Or did they find that he didn't kill anyone at all? Is there some other scenario here? It's confusing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the movie is different from real-life story, so I will keep the answer related to the movie. In the movie, Rustom's defense of "not guilty" is discussed both as "in the heat of the moment" as well as "in self-defense" and the final judgement is given based on "self defense". Will change the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Public (talk • contribs) 00:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)