JUDGMENT The correctness of the order dated 17.7.1997 of Additional Sessions Judge, Panna refusing to direct that the copies of statement allegedly recorded by the police on 16.9.1993 immediately after the incident be delivered to the accused-applicants, has been challenged in this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner are facing trial for offences punishable under sections 304B/149, 302/149 and 201/149 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with unnatural death of Kapoori Devi on 15.9.1993. It is alleged that the statements of three of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Pragilal, Dashrath Prasad and Jugalkishore were recorded twice by the police during investigation. The first on 16.9.1993, and again on 28.3.1994. Petitioners were supplied the copies of the letter of statements only. Their application for supply of copies of the earlier statements recorded on 16.9.1993 was rejected by the learned trial Court by the impugned order. The petitioners had even procured copies of these earlier statements and these photostate copies were filed before the learned Sessions Judge. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that refusing to supply the copies of statements of these witnesses will result in miscarriage of justice. The counsel for the State opposed this petition saying that copies of statements of these witnesses recorded during investigation have already been supplied to the accused along with the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the prosecution was not bound to supply the copies now demanded. We have heard counsel for both sides. Section 173(7) contemplates supply of copies of documents referred to in sub-section (6) of section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the accused. These documents include statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. If the statements of witnesses have been recorded twice during investigation, both sets of statements having been recorded under section 161 the accused ought to be gi ven copies of both the sets as required under section 173(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It cannot be left at the choice of the prosecution agency to select one set of statements for being furnished to the accused, while suppressing the other. Both these statements being previous statements within the meaning of section 145 of the Evidence Act, they can be used by the accused for purposes of contradiction. It cannot be left at the choice of the prosecution agency to select one set of statements for being furnished to the accused, while suppressing the other. Both these statements being previous statements within the meaning of section 145 of the Evidence Act, they can be used by the accused for purposes of contradiction. Non-supply of copies of statements is likely to adversely affect the defence of the accused persons. It is, therefore, directed that in case the statements of these three witnesses were also recorded earlier on 16.9.1993, then copies of these earlier statements be furnished to the accused-petitioners for being used under section 145 of the Evidence Act. if so desired. This petition is, therefore allowed;