Weaver
Sage
Anyone seen them? I sure haven't, especially with the antagonist. The worst I've seen is them getting a bad injury and it eventually being healed, sometimes miraculously.
Getting back to the original question here...
I cannot recall seeing an antagonist in fantasy fiction who had a physical disability. (I'm assuming the question refers to physical disability specifically, as it mentions injury.) I'm sure they're out there, though, since it used to be common shorthand for "bad guy" to give the antagonist something like a hunchback or a twisted limb.
I think that many writers avoid giving their antagonists any kind of disability because 1) they don't want to give readers any reason to pity the villian, 2) they don't want to be accused of suggesting that an unsound body equals an unsound mind, or 3) since the hero is judged in part by how powerful his enemies are, the evil overlord needs to be as formidable as possible.
These are all valid reasons not to tack a disability onto your antagonist.
If you're considering giving ANY character a disability merely for the sake of causing the reader to feel pity/sympathy for them, don't do it. For one thing, it will come across as shallow manipulation of the reader's emotions. Readers want their emotions manipulated (I, at least, cannot imagine the appeal of any work of fiction that doesn't make me feel something), but they want it done skillfully, not in a way that is hamhanded and blatant and probably ineffective to boot.
You don't want to be guilty of equating disability with evil. In real life, disabled people are no more - and no less - likely to be good or bad than any able-bodied person. So you don't want to be guilty of equating disability with some kind of moral superiority, either.
It is a common trope in fiction to have a hero who is physically powerful but of average intelligence, versus a villian who is physically deformed in some way but an evil genius. Occasionally you see it the other way around: the smart, unathletic kid versus the big strong bully. (I do not understand why fictional people apparently have to be either/or when it comes to intellect and strength, and I doubt I will ever understand - real life shows me that this is not how things work - but the trope is nearly ubiquitous.) This creates a kind of balance between the characters; each has an advantage that the other lacks. And obviously, if the evil overlord was a pushover, we wouldn't admire the hero for defeating him. Instead, we'd ask, "What took you so long?"
No one seems to consider vampirism a disability. I wonder why.
In contrast to physical disabilities, antagonists with mental disabilities are a dime a dozen. How often do we see Evil = Crazy = Evil? (Or, on the flip side, Crazy = It Isn't His Fault He's a Serial Killer?) We are less likely to see antagonists with intellectual disability (what used to be called mental retardation), perhaps for any of the three reasons listed above. No one wants to appear to equate low intelligence with evil (and yet why is the evil genius so common and acceptable a trope?), and no one wants to be offering excuses for the villian such as "He doesn't know it's wrong." (If he doesn't know that what he is doing is wrong, he is still be an antagonist but not a villian.) And again, if the villian is no match for the hero, we aren't impressed with the hero's ability to win in the end.
I'm probably overthinking this, but it's an interesting topic.