ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025 05 20
COURT FILE No.: Toronto 23-48113613
BETWEEN:
His Majesty the King
— AND —
Tharsigan Ravichandran
Before Justice Patrice F. Band
Reasons released: May 20, 2025
Ms. S. Park ................................................................................................ counsel for the Crown
Mr. S. Sutharsan ............................................................... counsel for the Accused, Mr. Ravichandran
BAND J.:
I. Background and Issues
[1] On the evening of June 9, 2023, Srikanth Sriskantharasa was stabbed during a dispute between two groups of men in a park in Scarborough. At the hospital, Mr. Sriskantharasa gave a very vague description of the male who stabbed him. About a month later, a photo line-up was presented to him. It was based on a description given by another witness.[^1] Mr. Sriskantharasa identified Tharsigan Ravichandran, a stranger to him, as the stabber. As a result, Mr. Ravichandran was charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm. Another male, Prasoth Poologarasa, was charged with assault causing bodily harm. On behalf of the Crown, Ms. Park proceeded summarily. At the outset of the trial, she decided to stay the prosecution against Mr. Poologarasa.
[2] The issue at Mr. Ravichandran’s trial was whether the Crown had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the person who stabbed Mr. Sriskantharasa. That question depended entirely on the credibility and reliability of the Crown and defence’s civilian witnesses. Mr. Ravichandran chose not to testify.
[3] For reasons that I will explain, after a thorough review of the testimony of the evidence, I have found that none of the civilian witnesses (with the exception of Jackson Ravichandran[^2]) were credible. Most if not all of them gave testimony that was internally inconsistent and that conflicted with other evidence. This was about core issues in the trial: the description and identity of the stabber, and the role others might have played in the altercation. Several displayed disinterest in the prosecution and a seemingly feigned forgetfulness.
[4] Most of them were also unreliable either because of their consumption of alcohol or the (real or claimed) effects of the passage of time. What is more, most of them had a motive to lie to protect themselves, another, or both. Also, the way in which the photo line-up was conducted with Mr. Sriskantharasa affected the reliability of his identification of Mr. Ravichandran. Oddly, although of less importance, the Crown’s case does not disclose a motive for the stabbing; Mr. Sriskantharasa was unable (or unwilling) to point to any. If anything, Mr. Sriskantharasa and his friend Thilaxsan Rasanayakam had a motive to confront or harm Mr. Poologarasa who, according to some, had made unwelcome advances toward Mr. Rasanayakam’s girlfriend Thebini Thavakumar days before the incident.
[5] This record cannot possibly support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
II. A Brief Summary of the Event
[6] There were a significant number of involved parties in this case or what led to it, not all of whom testified. While it is not completely clear from the evidence of those who did, as some (incredibly) denied knowing each other at all, it is apparent that they were broken up into two camps, roughly speaking. On one side, there were Mr. Sriskantharasa, Mr. Rasanayakam, Ms. Thavakumar and Rebecca and Jackson Ravichandran. On the other, Mr. Poologarasa, Sathayaseelan Rajadurai and Mr. Ravichandran. All of them were at the park at the time of the incident except for Jackson Ravichandran, who arrived after Mr. Sriskantharasa was stabbed.
[7] It is useful to identify them and describe their connections to each other.
Mr. Sriskantharasa’s camp
[8] Mr. Sriskantharasa is the victim of the stabbing. Based on the totality of the evidence, he was friends with Mr. Rasanayakam, Ms. Thavakumar and Ms. Ravichandran. He was also friends with Jackson Ravichandran.
[9] Ms. Thavakumar was Mr. Rasanayakam’s girlfriend. She was also friends with Ms. Ravichandran.
[10] Mr. Sriskantharasa knew Mr. Poologarasa and Mr. Rajadurai from before. Mr. Ravichandran was a stranger to him.
Mr. Poologarasa’s camp
[11] Mr. Poologarasa was at the park with Mr. Rajadurai and the accused. They had been working together that day.
[12] According to Mr. Rajadurai, Mr. Poologarasa was also friends with Mr. Sriskantharasa and Mr. Rasanayakam.
The conflicting narratives
[13] Mr. Sriskantharasa’s account is that he came to the park and had two-to-three beers with Mr. Rasanayakam, Ms. Thavakumar and Ms. Ravichandran. Mr. Poologarasa, Mr. Rajadurai and Mr. Ravichandran were socializing together, not far away, but Mr. Sriskantharasa had no interaction with them. At one point, Mr. Rasanayakam, Ms. Thavakumar and Ms. Ravichandran left Mr. Sriskantharasa to go to the washroom. At that time, Mr. Poologarasa, Mr. Rajadurai and Mr. Ravichandran came to him. Mr. Ravichandran stood directly in front of him and stabbed him as the other two held him from either side, or tried to. Mr. Sriskantharasa was adamant that no words had been exchanged prior to the attack, and that he had no idea why he had been stabbed. He insisted that he had been stabbed before Mr. Rasanayakam and the two women returned from the washroom. His three male opponents fled after he was stabbed.
[14] As for the other group, there is some evidence that Mr. Rasanayakam and, by association, Mr. Sriskantharasa, had a problem with the advances Mr. Poologarasa had made toward Ms. Thavakumar some days prior. This led one or both of them to confront them. Mr. Rajadurai testified that Mr. Sriskantharasa went to retrieve a folding chair from the trunk of Mr. Rasanayakam’s car and swung it at them like a baseball bat. Mr. Rasanayakam, for his part, yelled that he was “going to shoot” as he went to his trunk. Mr. Rajadurai left the scene at that point and Mr. Poologarasa and Mr. Ravichandran ran closely behind him. He did not see the stabbing.
III. The Problems with the Witness’s Testimony
Mr. Sriskantharasa
[15] There is no doubt that Mr. Sriskantharasa was stabbed and that this has had a serious and unfortunate impact on his health and wellbeing. However, his account of who stabbed him and why was neither credible nor reliable.
[16] First, for reasons known only to him, he denied the apparently benign fact that he had gone to the park specifically to see Rebecca Jackson, while he had told the police just that. Early in his testimony, he denied even knowing Mr. Rasanayakam and Ms. Thavakumar. That evolved to mere beliefs (“I think”) that they were at the park and that Ms. Thavakumar was Mr. Rasanayakam’s girlfriend. It is obvious that he was being dishonest. First, he knew Mr. Rasanayakam as a friend. Mr. Rasanayakam and Ms. Thavakumar said so. He also knew Ms. Thavakumar, through Mr. Rasanayakam. Also, several of the witnesses said that Mr. Rasanayakam was present. Based on all the evidence, it is apparent that Mr. Sriskantharasa was attempting to create distance between his friend Mr. Rasanayakam and the incident. I surmise that this is because he understood that Mr. Rasanayakam (and he) had a motive to confront Mr. Poologarasa, even though he denied any knowledge of Mr. Poologarasa’s earlier advances toward Ms. Thavakumar.
[17] Mr. Sriskantharasa was evasive about how much alcohol he had consumed and the impact it had on him. It began with two beers. Then two-to-three. However, he also testified that he drinks beer daily. When asked how many, he said that on the day before court, he had drunk eight “tall boys.” This appeared to be by way of example. He added that he did not lose consciousness on the day of the stabbing, and that 10-15 bottles would not make him feel high. For what it is worth, Mr. Rajadurai testified that Mr. Sriskantharasa and Mr. Rasanayakam were very intoxicated from drinking and smoking marihuana. I find it likely that Mr. Sriskantharasa drank much more than two or three beers in the park and that this had an impact on his ability to recall the events.
[18] Mr. Sriskantharasa had told police that all three of the men had knives. At trial, he maintained that only the stranger had a knife. When confronted, he said that he assumed that if one man stabbed him, the others must have had knives too. This was a flimsy explanation.
[19] Mr. Sriskantharasa’s denial that there had been any exchange at all between the groups before the stabbing was not credible. First, the way he described it as a random attack just when his friends had gone to the washroom is implausible. It was a busy park and there was still plenty of natural light. More importantly, all the other witnesses testified that words of some nature had been exchanged. Even Mr. Rasanayakam allowed that the group had come to say bye to “us,” which he explained meant Mr. Sriskantharasa. (He explained that he had told the police “us” only because he was standing next to his friend.) He also testified that he had heard Mr. Poologarasa tell Mr. Sriskantharasa that he “wants his [Mr. Poologarasa’s] name to be heard in Scarborough.” According to Ms. Thavakumar, the men were yelling as she was returning from the washroom.
[20] Importantly, Jackson Ravichandran testified that Mr. Sriskantharasa had phoned him twice to ask him to come to the park to help him. In the first call, he told him he had an issue and had gotten into a fight. Jackson declined, thinking his friend was joking. Five to six minutes later, Mr. Sriskantharasa called again, but this time he was screaming. This evidence undermined Mr. Sriskantharasa’s explanation that the attack had come out of the blue and had not been preceded by any interactions with members of the other group.
Mr. Rajadurai
[21] Mr. Rajadurai’s evidence was neither credible nor reliable. He testified that he had forgotten “most of the stuff” surrounding the incident. For instance, he had forgotten that Mr. Rasanayakam had started the incident when he went to his car and said that he was “going to shoot.” His memory was “refreshed” from his police statement on this point. That was a very surprising thing to forget. Based on all the evidence, I did not accept his testimony that he had left when the incident started (before the stabbing) because he was on probation. This is hard to believe, particularly since he explained that Mr. Poologarasa and Mr. Ravichandran were only 10-20 feet behind him when he arrived at his apartment building. Like the others, Mr. Rajadurai appeared to be protecting someone.
Mr. Rasanayakam
[22] Mr. Rasanayakam’s evidence was not credible or reliable. He explained that his memory was “not the greatest.” He testified that the male believed to be Tharsigan Ravichandran stabbed his friend. For reasons known only to him, he was the only person who described him as a black male with a beard, wearing a yellow jacket whose face was half covered with some sort of white cloth.[^3] He explained that he had gone home to use the washroom and returned to see the fight happening from 100 metres away. In contrast, he told police that he had stayed with Mr. Sriskantharasa as the women went to the washroom. His explanations for the inconsistency – they did not ask him; he is entitled to his “privilege” and “privacy” in relation to his use of the washroom – were contrived. It was clear to me that his intent was to put distance between himself and the events that led to the stabbing.
[23] He was also evasive about having seen Mr. Poologarasa and Mr. Ravichandran two days prior to the incident and about having had a conversation with Mr. Ravichandran at the park on the evening of the incident. He ended up having to acknowledge (in cross-examination) that Mr. Ravichandran’s Tamil was bad, but denied that this was proof that he had had an interaction with him directly. He denied that Ms. Thavakumar had told him about Mr. Poologarasa’s earlier advances. Later, when confronted with the fact that he had told police about it, he shrugged it off as a non-issue. He identified Mr. Ravichandran as the stabber, and his evidence can also be read to eliminate Mr. Poologarasa and Mr. Rajadurai as the perpetrator, but his evidence was completely unreliable, and I reject it.
Ms. Thavakumar
[1] It appeared to me that Ms. Thavakumar’s intent was to protect her boyfriend, Mr. Rasanayakam. She explained that Ms. Ravichandran had gotten involved in the dispute and had been pushed to the ground by one of the males. She went to her aid and for that reason was unable to say whether Mr. Rasanayakam was there or not.
[2] She testified that Mr. Ravichandran, whom she knew from high school, had a nose ring. Her description of what happened during the event suggested that it was Mr. Poologarasa who had stood in front of Mr. Sriskantharasa. He was moving like he had a weapon in his hand, as if he was going to stab someone. Credible or not, her evidence did not support the Crown’s case.
The description(s) and identification of the stabber
[3] At trial, Mr. Sriskantharasa testified that he had described the stabber to police as being lean, about 5’8”, 30 years of age, with a nose ring, long black hair, no facial hair, no glasses, wearing a black hoodie. He could not describe the hair any better because of the hoodie. Cross-examination revealed that his description to police had been no more than this: average weight, shorter than six feet tall, long hair in a ponytail. This description is generic in the extreme, perhaps because Mr. Sriskantharasa did not know Mr. Ravichandran and, according to him, had only a brief opportunity to observe him. Or perhaps for other reasons known only to him. It was only the description that he gave at trial that the Crown relied on in her submissions.
[4] The photo line-up procedure took place about six weeks after the incident and was videotaped. Mr. Ravichandran’s photo was the fifth in the line-up. Mr. Sriskantharasa looked at the first five photographs at length. He explained that he selected those photographs because they depicted who he “thought would be involved in this on average.” He told the officer that he picked the photo of Mr. Ravichandran because of his skin colour, the shape of his ears and the shape of his nose. He had not described any of those features to police earlier (and it is hard to know how he could have seen the shape of Mr. Ravichandran’s ears, given the hoodie). Ultimately, of the four or five photos he focused on, he chose the person “who most resembled” the stabber.
[5] Aside from these concerns, the procedure itself was problematic. When Mr. Sriskantharasa was considering Mr. Ravichandran’s photo, he told the officer that he “somewhat recognized” the person depicted in it, but was not 100%; as a result, he asked if he should say “yes” or “no”? Rather than reminding him that the person of interest may not be in the package, or that he should not guess and was under no obligation to choose any photo, the officer replied, “it’s either yes or no, you can’t have any doubt.” I am concerned that, in the context of this case, the officer’s reply could very well have made Mr. Sriskantharasa choose the photo despite the clear doubts he had expressed about it.
[6] Setting aside the problematic evolution of Mr. Sriskantharasa’s description of the stabber from the date of the incident to trial, his identification of Mr. Ravichandran during the line-up – a stranger to him in a traumatic incident that, according to him, happened very quickly – was unreliable. As such, it could not imbue the description he provided at trial with any real probative value, much less his pre-trial description.
[7] I acknowledge that the recommendations emanating from the Sophonow inquiry are not legal requirements for photo line-ups, and that a failure to strictly adhere to them does not necessarily invalidate the procedure adopted in a given case. However, as I have attempted to explain, the identification problems in this case go well beyond that legal issue.
[8] It must also be noted that the descriptions given by other witnesses were inconsistent. Mr. Rajadurai described Mr. Ravichandran as brown-skinned and “probably wearing a black sweater.” He said nothing about a nose ring. Mr. Rasanayakam described him as black-skinned, wearing a white head and face covering and a yellow jacket. He mentioned a nose ring but also added a black beard. Ms. Thavakumar described him as light-skinned.
[9] Based on the totality of the evidence and, admittedly, some reading between the lines, I find that it is most likely if not certain that Mr. Ravichandran was present during the incident; however, the Crown has not come close to proving that he was the person who stabbed Mr. Sriskantharasa. The only way the Crown could do so would be by process of elimination or, as she described it, the use of deductive logic. That can be a legitimate approach in a case where the evidence is credible, reliable, detailed and consistent.
[10] In this case, the evidence is none of those things.
III. Conclusion
[11] For these reasons, Mr. Ravichandran is entitled to be found not guilty on both counts.
Released: May 20, 2025
Justice Patrice F. Band
[^1]: Sathayaseelan Rajadurai.
[^2]: He and his sister Rebecca, discussed below, are not related to the accused Mr. Ravichandran.
[^3]: Officer Lupson testified that Mr. Rajadurai had told him that Mr. Ravichandran was wearing a white, yellow and black jacket as a head covering; however, Mr. Rajadurai did not testify about a head covering or jacket.