As per the case facts, the appellant and his father were tried for murder. The trial court convicted the appellant for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 ... Part I of the IPC, while acquitting his father. The High Court affirmed this conviction, leading the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the appellant's actions, involving a single blow with an agricultural tool to the deceased's head, constituted an intention to cause death (murder) or merely knowledge that it was likely to cause an injury that could lead to death (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). Finally, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It altered the appellant's conviction from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The Court reasoned that while the blow was forceful and caused fatal head injuries, the use of a common agricultural tool and the single blow did not necessarily demonstrate an intention to cause death, but rather knowledge that such an act was likely to cause death. The sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for five years.