YS Sharmila has launched a sharp attack on YS Jagan Mohan Reddy and Kadapa MP Avinash Reddy over the YS Vivekananda Reddy murder case. She called their statements shocking and unacceptable. Responding to Avinash Reddy’s claim that Sunitha first spoke about a heart attack, Sharmila dismissed it outright. She said such arguments are nothing but desperate attempts to shift blame.
Sharmila questioned how a brutal murder could be casually labelled as a heart attack. She pointed out that Sakshi Media began broadcasting the heart attack narrative early in the morning. She said neither Sunitha nor herself had any way of knowing such details at that time. According to her, only those present at the scene could have pushed that version. She did not hold back while targeting Jagan. She accused him of changing his stand on a CBI probe. She recalled that he once demanded a CBI inquiry, but later refused it after coming to power. She said the investigation moved forward only because Sunitha fought legally.
Taking a direct swipe, Sharmila said the case was twisted to protect the real culprits. She alleged that efforts were made to portray Sunitha’s husband as the accused. She called it a calculated attempt to divert attention. She questioned whether Avinash Reddy had no role in the murder, and instead Sunitha and her husband were involved. Why did the CBI fail to find any evidence against them? She asked why all the evidence collected by the CBI points only towards Avinash Reddy. She also pointed out that despite Jagan being Chief Minister for five years, not a single piece of evidence was presented against Sunitha’s husband, whom they are accusing of the murder.
Sharmila made it clear that the murder was linked to political ambitions. She claimed Viveka opposed giving the Kadapa MP ticket to Avinash Reddy. She said that even if Viveka had another wife and son, he had already decided how they should live. She questioned why Avinash Reddy’s side is suggesting they could have had a motive to kill him. She argued that they would actually benefit more if Viveka had remained alive. She pointed out that Viveka had already transferred his assets in Sunitha’s name and had nothing left in his own name. Therefore, she said, his death would bring no benefit to the second family, only loss.
In a blunt remark, she said power and influence are being used to rewrite facts. She added that branding victims as accused reflects moral collapse. According to her, this is not just a legal battle. It is a fight for truth.
