From the word circumstantial evidence, it can be said that circumstantial evidence is evidence-based on circumstances, we have to confer these pieces of evidence by logical deduction and analysis. An example of circumstantial evidence is the behaviour of a person around the time of an alleged offence. If someone were charged with theft of money and were then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be regarded as circumstantial evidence of the individual’s guilt. Similarly, if a witness arrives at a crime scene seconds after hearing a gunshot to find someone standing over a corpse and holding a smoking pistol, the evidence is circumstantial; since the person may merely be a bystander who picked up the weapon after the killer dropped it. The popular notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is false. Most criminal convictions are based, at least in part, on circumstantial evidence that sufficiently links criminal and crime. Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions (the immature, incompetent, or), nearly all criminals are careful not to generate direct evidence, and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of “purposely” or “knowingly,” the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence. The same goes for tortfeasors in tort law if one needs to prove a high level of mens rea to obtain punitive damages.
Damage means compensation for the loss suffered by the aggrieved party in breach of contract.
Consent is when one person agrees to the proposal of another person. It is a term of common speech and is used in the field of law, research, medicine, sexual relationship.