Hyderabad: In a surprise twist to the Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy murder case, his personal assistant M.V. Krishna Reddy approached the Telangana High Court challenging the Kadapa sessions court orders issuing a pardon to Shaik Dastagiri, an accused in the case, so as to turn approver.
Krishna Reddy charged that the CBI was trying to protect Dastagiri from the wife and daughter of Vivekananda Reddy.
When the statements by the witnesses and himself pointed to the involvement of Dastagiri, how could the CBI and family members of the deceased not oppose the pardon to him, Krishna Reddy wondered, claiming that he was the slain leader’s PA for 30 years.
He alleged that the wife and daughter of Vivekananda Reddy had hired persons, including Dastagiri, to eliminate Vivekananda Reddy. The family is also trying to protect Dastagiri because though his statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC, he had diverted attention of the prosecution agency from the family members, their strained relationship with the deceased and their possible motive to get him eliminated.
Further, Krishna Reddy mentioned that Vivekananda Reddy had a second wife and a son from her. As such, the first wife of the deceased did not live with him and his daughter was not on talking terms with him till his death. It was also pertinent to mention that the deceased wanted to alienate assets and properties to the names of his second wife and son, and transfer Rs 8 crore, which he was supposed to receive from a land deal in Bengaluru, he said.
The petition came for hearing on Thursday before Justice K. Surender.
Senior counsel D. Prakash Reddy appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, senior counsel T. Niranjan Reddy brought to the notice of the court that a similar plea by Bhaskar Reddy, father of Y.S. Avinash Reddy, Kadapa MP, was filed and requested to hear that petition too.
Meanwhile, T. Swetcha, counsel for Dr N. Suneetha Reddy, daughter of Vivekananda Reddy, urged the court to allow the implead petition filed by her, because the allegations were made against here. Agreeing to the requests, Justice K. Surender adjourned the matter to Monday.
