As per case facts, a boundary dispute between brothers escalated when the deceased started fencing his property. Appellant Senthil (A-1) attacked the deceased's brother (PW-4) with an Aruval, while Appellant ... Sivakumar (A-2) struck the deceased on the head with a log, leading to his death from skull fracture and brain injury. The Trial Court convicted A-1 for causing hurt and A-2 for grievous hurt. The High Court, however, convicted both for obscene acts and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, prompting appeals. The question arose whether mere abusive language constitutes an obscene act under Section 294(b) IPC, if A-1 shared common intention for culpable homicide, and if A-2's conviction for culpable homicide based on a single blow with a log was appropriate. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that 'bastard' alone is not obscene under Section 294(b) IPC, thus acquitting both on that charge. It found no common intention for culpable homicide by A-1, upholding his conviction only for causing hurt to PW-4 with a reduced sentence. For A-2, the Court affirmed the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, acknowledging his knowledge of likely death, but reduced his sentence to three years rigorous imprisonment given the context of a heated moment and the weapon used.