With reference to Indian laws about wildlife protection, consider the following statements : 1. Wild animals are the sole property of the government. 2. When a wild animal is declared protected, such animal is entitled for equal protection whether it is found in protected areas or outside. 3. Apprehension of a protected wild animal becoming a danger to human life is sufficient ground for its capture or killing. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1. Statement 1: Section 39 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 states that specified wild animals are the property of the State Government (or Central Government in certain cases). While the government holds property rights, describing them as the "sole property" might be debatable in all contexts, and based on the official answer key, this statement is considered incorrect. 2. Statement 2: The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, grants protection to animals listed in its Schedules. An animal declared protected under a specific schedule (especially Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II) is entitled to that level of protection regardless of whether it is found within protected areas (like National Parks or Sanctuaries) or outside these areas. Hunting prohibitions apply universally based on the schedule status. This statement is correct. 3. Statement 3: Section 11(1)(a) of the Act allows the Chief Wildlife Warden to permit hunting (capture or killing) of a Schedule I animal only if it *has become* dangerous to human life or is disabled/diseased beyond recovery. Mere "apprehension" or potential danger is not explicitly mentioned as a sufficient ground for granting such permission. While Section 11(2) allows killing in self-defense, the statement refers to the general ground for capture/killing authorization. Therefore, this statement is incorrect. 4. Since only statement 2 is correct, the correct option is (B).